Preamble

The House—after the Adjournment on 21st December, 1966, for the Christmas Recess—met at half-past Two o'clock.

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

DEATH OF A MEMBER

Mr. Speaker: I regret to have to inform the House of the death of John Ellis Talbot, esquire, Member for Brierley Hill, and I desire on behalf of the House to express our sense of the loss we have sustained and our sympathy with the relatives of the honourable Member.

Oral Answers to Questions — MINISTRY OF POWER

North Sea Gas and Oil Supplies

Mr. Gwilym Roberts: asked the Minister of Power to what extent gas supplies from the North Sea are being held up by foreign companies refusing to agree to the British Government's price per therm; and what steps he is taking to get over this difficulty.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Power whether he will make a statement on the negotiations concerning the price to be paid for North Sea gas.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Power what action he intends to take to bring about a settlement of the dispute over the price of North Sea gas.

The Minister of Power (Mr. Richard Marsh): Negotiations between the Gas Council and the licensees, both British and foreign, are continuing. There is no evidence that gas supplies from the North Sea are being held up.

Mr. Roberts: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that the difficulties with these private conferences emphasise once again the need for a national Natural Gas Corporation? Can my right hon. Friend at this stage estimate the foreseeable output and usage of this gas?

Mr. Marsh: In reply to the first part of the question, I have always thought that the task of the Ministry of Power was virtually to fulfil the functions which my hon. Friend is suggesting for a national power authority. With regard to the second part, no one yet knows how much natural gas there is under the North Sea. It will certainly be in excess of 1,000 million cu. ft. a day by 1970.

Mr. Jenkin: Does not the Minister recognise that the quantity that will be


available for consumers in this country will depend to a very large extent on the price that the Gas Council is prepared to pay? How much longer will the country have to wait until we have an answer to this critical and, I admit, difficult question?

Mr. Marsh: I think that the negotiations are progressing favourably and fairly between the two parties. Clearly, a sensible price for North Sea gas would be one which optimised production.

Mr. Barber: In the light of the wording of the Question, will the right hon. Gentleman confirm that the Government welcome the infusion of foreign capital and the provision of foreign "know-how", and that his objective will be to reach a price which will provide an incentive to the operating companies to find and to deliver the maximum amount of gas?

Mr. Marsh: Of course, we are pleased to have this level of foreign investment in this exercise, and, of course, the price fixed would have to be one which was sufficiently fair to the producers to persuade them to wish to continue producing. On the other hand, there are consumer interests as well. I have never regarded this as a set of negotiations which were not capable of being concluded in the interest of both parties.

Mr. James Johnson: Since we are dealing with enormous sums of money to be paid by the Gas Council—which is taxpayers' money in the end—can my right hon. Friend tell us, if we were to pay 3d. per therm instead of 2d. per therm, what would be the cost in payments to the Gas Council over the next twenty years?

Mr. Marsh: I could not answer that question because there is no particular relevance in the figure of either 2d. or 3d.

Mr. Peyton: May I ask the Minister to take this matter very seriously? Nothing would be more tragic for this country than that this opportunity were lost by a desire to depress prices and discourage an enterprise of exploration which has been so auspiciously begun. The Minister has enormous responsibility to shoulder in this matter.

Mr. Marsh: We accept entirely that these negotiations are very important for

the country in terms of the vast sums involved. So far, however, the negotiations have not taken very long. This is an incredibly important issue, as hon. Members on both sides accept. As far as I know, there is no dissatisfaction on either side with the way the negotiations are continuing, and there is no purpose in producing a picture of great difficulty which does not exist at the moment.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Power what is the cost to the national Exchequer of the present drilling for oil and gas in the North Sea under licence from him; and in what ways the money is spent.

Mr. Marsh: About £41,000 has been spent in the period from 1st April, 1964, to 31st December, 1966, on the issue of licences and on related administrative activities.

Mr. Hughes: How does the cost balance the saving to British users of oil and gas? If there is no such saving, are not these licences an economic loss to the British consumers?

Mr. Marsh: They are certainly not an economic loss. We cannot at the moment work out the saving in terms of a saving in our balance of payments because we do not know how much gas we will have and, therefore, how much we will be selling. The cost of granting and administering licences at present amounts to less than £20,000 a year, but the payment for licences has so far amounted to £2,700,000.

Sir S. McAdden: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving those figures. Will he make it abundantly clear that the trifling amounts involved in the issue of licences is nothing compared with the tremendous risk of capital that is involved in this exploration?

Mr. Marsh: It is clear that there has been a significant commercial risk involved in this matter, but that is exactly what an entrepreneur undertakes when he enters activities of this sort. It must be said, however, that the level of risk in this particular exercise is probably as low as, if not lower than, any similar exploration in the world.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Power if he will give details of the provisions in licences he grants to


persons and companies to drill for oil and gas in the North Sea with special reference to any benefits such drilling may confer on North-East Scotland.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. Reginald Freeson): The licences contain no provisions related specifically to North-East Scotland or any other part of Great Britain.

Mr. Hughes: Cannot my hon. Friend give some further information about these licences? For instance, is there any provision in the licence requiring the owners of rigs to get repairs done in this country instead of, as happened recently, sending to Germany or other Continental countries for repairs to be done?

Mr. Freeson: On the specific point that my hon. and learned Friend raises, I should have thought it far better to leave it to the people in charge to get the repairs undertaken as rapidly and efficiently as possible from the point of view of safety. Other conditions are laid down in line with the model clauses contained in the Petroleum (Production) (Continental Shelf and Territorial Sea) Regulations, 1964, which cover such matters as payments, working obligations, proper methods of operation, approval for wells, safety of workers, keeping of records, etc.

Gas Supplies (Standing Charge)

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Minister of Power how many protests he has received about the new standing charge for small gas consumers; and if he will now give a general direction, in the public interest, to gas boards to withdraw it.

Mr. Freeson: About 180 protests have been received. It is not considered appropriate to give a general direction in a matter of this kind.

Mrs. Short: Is my hon. Friend aware that many of my elderly constituents who do not have pre-payment meters are receiving bills for gas which are considerably higher than those which they received before? On the other hand, is he aware that the West Midlands police are advising elderly householders not to have prepayment meters because of the risk of burglary? Will he look into this matter again to see if some relief can be given, particularly to pensioners?

Mr. Freeson: The kind of information mentioned by my hon. Friend would be considered if it were submitted to my Department. It should be stated that the standing charge does not necessarily mean that there is an excessive increase in cost, because the initial charges for therms are considerably reduced. The rates have been reduced in the West Midlands area by between 8d. and 1s. 1d. per therm. The introduction of pre-payment meters, in place of credit meters, is a sensible step for people to undertake, particularly when they use small amounts of gas. But I am assured that the Board would consider making special arrangement for elderly persons who find any difficulty in this connection.

Sir S. McAdden: In view of the loud-throated and enthusiastic support which his right hon. Friend gave to this matter when it was first raised, will not the hon. Gentleman—whom we congratulate on his new appointment—urge his right hon. Friend to give very serious consideration to this matter and a more satisfactory reply?

Nationalised Industries (Capital Return)

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Power what has been the net return on capital employed in the nationalised coal, gas, and electricity industries, respectively, in the last year; and how this compares with the average for the last five years.

Mr. Freeson: The net return after depreciation in 1965–66 was, for gas, 5·4 per cent., and, for electricity, 7 per cent., the five-year averages 1961–66 being 5·1 per cent. and 6·4 per cent., respectively. In the case of coal, the figure was affected by deferment of price increases and amounted to only ·03 per cent. as compared with 4·2 per cent. for the last five years. With permission, I shall circulate explanatory notes in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Mr. Ridsdale: As the net return is only one-third of what can be earned in private industry, do not these figures cast grave doubts on the Government's policy of pressing ahead with further public control and nationalisation?

Mr. Freeson: No, Sir. The hon. Gentleman is quite wrong in this matter, particularly since comparisons with the


private sector are misleading, as indeed the previous Conservative Government explained in their White Paper on the Financial and Economic Obligations of the Nationalised Industries. Regarding the hon. Gentleman's last remarks, I would point out that in relation to the steel industry, the rate of return in 1965–66 seems likely to be at about 4 per cent.

Following are the Explanatory Notes:

1. Net return for this purpose consists of surpluses (or deficits) and interest.
2. The National Coal Board, 1965–66, figure is calculated after allowance for the capital reconstruction carried out in that year. The average is in respect of the Boards accounting years 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964–65 and 1965–66. Because of the change in the Board's accounting year the return for 1963 has been assumed to be 12/15th of the figure for the 15 months period ended March, 1964.
3. The Gas figures are for England, Wales and Scotland; the Electricity figures for England and Wales only.

Nuclear Power Stations

Mr. Webster: asked the Minister of Power what steps he is taking to assist the gaining of contracts to build nuclear power stations abroad.

Mr. Gregory: asked the Minister of Power what recommendations he will make to the nuclear power engineering and allied industries for the reorganisation of the consortia system to ensure the advancement of the advanced gas-cooled and other British reactors, and towards a full realisation of design and cost factors for domestic electricity supply purposes.

Mr. Marsh: I encourage the Central Electricity Generating Board to follow investment policies which will foster an efficient nuclear power industry. Recommendations to the nuclear plant industries rest with my right hon. Friend the Minister of Technology.

Mr. Webster: Would it not help to award a contract now to the Central Electricity Generating Board? Is the right hon. Gentleman not aware that a contract for a reactor of the same design is being negotiated with the Belgians and that there is great sales resistance there?

Mr. Marsh: Consideration is being given to the C.E.G.B. I assure the hon. Gentleman that there is no question here

of the suitability or performance of the design itself, but that this must be considered in terms of the economic factors applying to it. There is no reason to suppose that foreign buyers would take this into account when considering purchasing nuclear power stations.

Mr. Gregory: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the strong opinion in the industry that if we replicated on the basis of the A.G.R. design there would be a run-up of at least three new stations? Would he not agree that that would then lead the way to reduced costs in the production of domestic electricity and would make way for new opportunities for the export of nuclear power, thus creating a new exporting industry?

Mr. Marsh: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest, which is well known, in the question of replication. However, there are arguments on both sides. The C.E.G.B. is concerned with the production of power in this country and must have in mind the need to stay ahead with the most efficient and up-to-date stations. This must be put in the balance against replication, but I assure my hon. Friend that his views are taken into account.

Mr. Peyton: Further to the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), does the Minister realise that most of us would not want to accuse the right hon. Gentleman of dragging his feet in this matter but suspect that the delay in ordering the Hinkley B is entirely the responsibility of the Treasury? Will he make urgent representations to that Department to get on with the job?

Hon. Members: Answer.

Mr. Dalyell: Would my right hon. Friend say which Ministry is responsible for following up the export experiences of Italy and Japan?

Mr. Marsh: I assure my hon. Friend that promoting exports is not a formal duty of the C.E.G.B. and that this is not my Department's responsibility. The task of looking into those matters rests with the Ministry of Technology and the Board of Trade.

Mr. Webster: In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall raise this


matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible opportunity.

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power how much construction of nuclear-powered electricity generation capacity he now plans to authorise in 1967; how many stations are involved; and where they will be located.

Mr. Marsh: I am still considering the Central Electricity Generating Board's proposed capital development programme in which it plans to start one new nuclear power station in 1967 to be sited at Hinkley Point. The Board has not yet made any firm proposals for subsequent nuclear power stations.

Mr. Osborn: When will a decision be reached in connection with Hinkley B and what type of A.G.R. power station is contemplated?

Mr. Marsh: The answer to the question is, very shortly.

Mr. Peyton: asked the Minister of Power what proportion of new generating stations will have nuclear power.

Mr. Marsh: As stated in the White Paper on Fuel Policy, about 8,000 MW of nuclear generating capacity is expected to be brought into commission in the six years 1970–75. I cannot say what proportion of new generating capacity that will represent as plant programmes beyond 1970 have not yet been settled.

Mr. Peyton: As we hope he has already hoisted in the message about Hinkley Point, does the Minister realise that there is an immense responsibility on the present Administration to maintain the worldwide lead which the Conservative Government left to this Administration in the use of nuclear power for generating purposes?

Mr. Marsh: I think Britain's present position in a worldwide lead in nuclear energy owes far more to the technicians involved than to any politicians on either side of the House. Decisions for 1971 and later can be made only on forecasts for electricity in those later years.

Mr. Lubbock: Will the Minister consider increasing the proportion of power to be generated by nuclear plant in the period 1970 to 1975 from the present level of about 25 per cent. of the total

capacity to be provided for the whole of the base load?

Mr. Marsh: This is a question which has real implications for the whole of energy policy. Certainly there is a great increase in nuclear plant in this country and something which, because we have a lead, we would like to see extended.

Meter Reading

Mr. Dance: asked the Minister of Power whether he will give a general directive to the Gas and Electricity Boards to consider the desirability of co-ordinating their meter-reading services so that a single representative of the two nationalised industries will read both meters.

Mr. Freeson: The Weir Committee on co-operation between electricity and gas boards reported in 1959 that the balance of advantage appeared to lie in leaving meter reading within the responsibility of each industry. However, the scope for further co-operation between the two industries in this and other fields is kept under review.

Mr. Dance: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I have seen this system operating very satisfactorily in France? Would he agree that there would be about 50 per cent. saving in actual meter reading if this system were used; that there would certainly be 50 per cent. less inconvenience to consumers, who sometimes have to arrange for someone to be present when the meters are read, and that there would be 50 per cent. less security risk in unknown people being allowed into people's homes and flats?

Mr. Freeson: I agree with the hon. Gentleman's point about allowing unknown people into flats and houses, but this does not really arise here, as it is a matter of tenants and householders taking care in this respect. I can certainly accept his point about convenience to consumers, but I am afraid that he is quite wrong in regard to the economics. There is no question of a 50 per cent. saving being involved here. It would be a quite marginal saving and, indeed, certain developments now being studied in both industries might overtake even this suggestion about co-operation.

Mr. Barber: May I join in congratulating the hon. Gentleman on his appointment? I would not wish on this his


first appearance at the Treasury Box to press him unduly, but I hope that in the light of what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance), and of other statements that have been made on this topic, he will look at it again.

Mr. Freeson: The answer is, "Yes". I have already indicated that we are keeping in touch with this matter.

Decimal Currency

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Power what representations he has received from the gas industry in favour of a decimal currency based on a 10s. unit.

Mr. Freeson: None, Sir.

Mr. Campbell: As a final decision has not yet been taken on the unit of decimal currency, will the Government bear in mind the saving of money and the great convenience to both the gas industry and to its consumers of a 10s. system?

Mr. Freeson: The gas industry expressed a general desire—or, perhaps, a marginal desire—when giving evidence to the Halsbury Committee that it would like to see the 6d. coin retained, but on the understanding that the new £1 unit would produce coins which were suitable for the metering system the industry accepted that it could operate quite satisfactorily.

Mr. Weatherill: Will the Minister bear in mind that there is very grave anxiety in industry and business, and in some public undertakings, notably London Transport, about the possible introduction of a system that will involve fractions? Will he have urgent discussions with the Gas Board with a view to ensuring that if a decimal system involving fractions is brought in, the accounts, which are already difficult enough to understand, will be downgraded to the nearest cent, rather than upgraded?

Mr. Freeson: On the last point, it is a matter for the Gas Board, or the Gas Council, to consider certain commercial undertakings or industries, and I can assure hon. Members that research is going on inside the gas industry on how it can best adapt to the new system.

Electricity Supplies

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: asked the Minister of Power whether he expects that the Central Electricity Generating Board will be able to meet the demand for power this winter.

Mr. Marsh: Yes, Sir. Although I am still not satisfied with the margin of capacity which the Board has in hand, it should suffice unless there are unexpected breakdowns or unusually severe weather conditions.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the Minister accept that he has only been saved from a considerable risk of substantial breakdown by a much lower level of industrial demand as a result of the squeeze, and will he be prepared to chalk that up as something to be said for it?

Mr. Marsh: No, Sir. I think that a great deal of credit goes to those people working in the nationalised industry on this occasion for their work. Plant availability is high—running at about 88 per cent.—more plant is in use, and the programme for summer overhauls was completed by the end of October. Hon. Members opposite should join with us in congratulating those who have worked so hard to achieve this result.

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power what forecast has currently been adopted by the Electricity Council in conjunction with his Department for the maximum electricity demand, in megawatts, for the winter of 1970–71; and what assumptions about the rate of economic growth underlie this forecast.

Mr. Marsh: The Electricity Council's last forecast, which was adopted in January, 1966, implied a national maximum demand of 51,100 MW. in 1970–71 on the basis of the economic growth assumptions in the National Plan. The review of its forecast, on which the Council is now working, will assume lower growth rates.

Mr. Alison: Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us whether any current power station projects are being phased over a longer period, or are we simply to go on with the momentum generated in the earlier programme, taking no account of the lower growth rate, and


without any consideration at all of the shortage of capital in private industry at present?

Mr. Marsh: The Council's review will not be completed until the spring. Clearly, any alterations that need to be made in terms of investment plans will be made in the light of that review.

Sir G. Nabarro: Is the Minister aware that a reduction in the national growth rate from the 4 per cent. postulated in the National Plan to the actual level of 1 per cent. today will result in a saving of £260 million a year in electricity investment?

Mr. Marsh: I do not have those particular figures—

Sir G. Nabarro: I worked them out.

Mr. Marsh: It is precisely because I assumed that they were the hon. Gentleman's own figures that I did not want to take them too literally.

Central Electricity Generating Board (Development Programme)

Sir J. Eden: asked the Minister of Power when he last held a review with the Chairman of the Central Electricity Generating Board to discuss the Board's plans for development and capital expenditure for the next five years ahead, according to the procedure described in paragraph 10 of Command Paper No. 2798, Fuel Policy.

Mr. Marsh: I am currently discussing with the Chairman the Board's programme of development and capital expenditure for the years up to 1971–72.

Sir J. Eden: Surely in view of the total collapse of the National Plan and because of the measures taken by the Government deliberately to slow down the rate of economic growth in this country, should not this review have taken place very much earlier?

Mr. Marsh: No, I think the review has taken place as quickly as it could and as would be sensible with matters of this size. Discussions on the Board's programme for the next five years will probably be concluded very shortly.

Gas Council (Land)

Mr. J. H. Osborn: asked the Minister of Power how much land has been purchased by the Gas Council specifically for the storage, distribution, and processing of natural gas; and how much of this land is located on or near the coast.

Mr. Marsh: No land has been purchased for the storage or distribution of natural gas. Forty-four acres have been purchased at Easington for the processing of gas from the B.P. strike with a coastal frontage of about 320 yards.

Mr. Osborn: How much land is intended to be purchased by the Gas Council? Will the Minister bear in mind that if this land is on the coast, particularly the Norfolk coast, good rural land will be given over to industry? Will he consider making representations to the Gas Council to ensure that it will purchase land inland and not on the coast?

Mr. Marsh: On the actual amounts, the Gas Council has applied for planning consent for about 130 acres at Bacton in Norfolk, Shell has applied for 60 acres on an adjacent site; such applications go to the Ministry of Housing and Local Government. Various factors and representations made from time to time will be taken into account.

Oral Answers to Questions — COAL

Retail Distribution

Mr. Eadie: asked the Minister of Power if the organisations concerned in retail coal distribution have given him a date when they are likely to report to him arising out of the Prices and Incomes Report of September 1966.

Mr. Freeson: At a meeting earlier this month representatives of the coal trade outlined to my predecessor proposals for pilot scale studies of rationalisation schemes which will shortly be considered by the Central Committee of the Coal Merchants Federation. I shall keep in close touch with developments. In the meantime, a substantial number of schemes for rationalisation and concentration are going ahead.

Mr. Eadie: Is my hon. Friend aware that since 1958, when decontrol was introduced in this industry, the retail margin of profit has increased considerably—indeed, has exactly doubled—whereas the total tonnage distributed has decreased? How does he expect the consumers of this country to be interested in increased production when we have such delays in dealing with very important matters of this sort?

Mr. Freeson: I can only refer my hon. Friend to the Report of the National Board for Prices and Incomes which was issued not long ago and in which the Board stated that it did not consider that the trade was making unreasonable profits.

Mr. Biffen: Would the hon. Gentleman confirm that it is now the policy of the National Coal Board to increase its interest in coal distribution to promote the rationalisation to which he referred in his previous Answer?

Mr. Freeson: It is certainly correct to say that the N.C.B. is extending its activities in this sphere. I believe that it now covers about 4 per cent. of this trade and is in negotiation with one or two major companies with a view to forming an association with them. As I have indicated, considerable rationalisation is going ahead at the present time.

Mr. Hannan: Will my hon. Friend remember that whereas the cost of producing coal has gone up by 28 per cent. since 1958, increased distribution costs have increased by 65 per cent. to 70 per cent.? Will he bear that in mind when giving further consideration to this matter?

Mr. Freeson: I will certainly bear in mind any relevant information that is brought to my attention. However, I must again stress that the National Board for Prices and Incomes stated that it did not believe that the trade was making unreasonable profits.

Smokeless Fuels

Mr. Iremonger: asked the Minister of Power if he will make a statement about the availability and prices as compared with ordinary fuel of smokeless fuel for people living in newly declared

smokeless zones in Redbridge; and what plans he has for special price concessions for retirement pensioners whose fuel bills are increased by the requirement to burn smokeless fuel.

Mr. Freeson: Supplies and prices of smokeless fuels in particular areas are matters for the suppliers and distributors. The Supplementary Benefits Commission will consider making a special grant to help pensioners eligible for supplementary benefits who find themselves in difficulty as a result of having to switch to smokeless fuels.

Mr. Iremonger: But surely the Minister realises that this is not a matter of people on National Assistance, as they still regard themselves, but of people on very marginal incomes just above that level. As the hon. Gentleman's Government have already arranged for old-age pensioners to have indiscriminate benefits on public transport, will they not now do something about people who want to keep themselves warm in the winter?

Mr. Freeson: I do not think that I can add very much to what I have already said. Questions about the level of pensions and the incomes of people in difficulties are for the Minister of Social Security. As I have indicated, if certain people are in difficulties they can make application and receive assistance.

Mr. Molloy: Is my hon. Friend aware that there is a great deal of bitterness extant amongst members of the general public over what they consider to be cheating amongst retailers over price increases for smokeless fuel? If my hon. Friend is to say that that is the public's responsibility, it seems pointless for them to complain in order to be protected against this cheating, as they have been asked to do by the First Secretary. Will not my hon. Friend reconsider his reply, and say that on receipt of complaints of these increases his Ministry will thoroughly examine them?

Mr. Freeson: I am sorry if my previous replies implied, or were taken to imply, that we would not investigate complaints reported to us. In fact, the Department is dealing with complaints very thoroughly. We have had quite a number, and I can assure him that we shall continue to investigate them.

Draysley Company, Slough

Mr. Alison: asked the Minister of Power what consultations took place between the National Coal Board and himself in the matter of the Board's capital investment of £207,000 in the Draysley Company of Slough; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Marsh: The Board informed me of its arrangements for this Company to assist in the development of a domestic boiler which would burn bituminous coal smokelessly. The model handled by the Draysley Company has been discontinued, but the development of an improved design is being pursued by the Board.

Mr. Alison: Is the Minister aware that this looks like being another of the bottomless pits without any coal in them into which the Coal Board is so blindly throwing public money? Why buy up this firm at £¼ million in order to discontinue the current range of products that it had developed? What does the Board hope to sell in the future?

Mr. Marsh: The purpose of this particular enterprise was to enable the Board to pursue research and development on solid fuel burning appliances, which is a proper function of the Board. It was a reasonable investment, and the sort necessary for this degree of research and development.

Pits (Closures)

Mr. Shinwell: asked the Minister of Power what consultations he had with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about the further closure of pits and the reduction of manpower by another 150,000 by 1970; and in which coalfields the reductions will occur.

Mr. Marsh: I am in touch with the Chairman of the National Coal Board about colliery closures as part of our regular meetings, but there has been no discussion about reducing manpower by another 150,000 by 1970. The collieries most likely to be closed by 1970 are those in category "C" of the Colliery Classification list of November, 1965.

Mr. Shinwell: Has my right hon. Friend read the recent pronouncement by Lord Robens, the Chairman of the Board? Does he realise that these pronounce-

ments create further insecurity among the miners? In the absence of information, what does he expect the miners to do? Are they to retain their employment in pits likely to be insecure? What about local authorities? How is it possible for them to plan housing and the like without the information? Does my right hon. Friend realise that many miners, certainly in my area, although I do not know if he is aware of it, begin to have very grave doubts about nationalisation?

Mr. Marsh: The latest pronouncements by Lord Robens last week show that about 330,000 men would be employed in coal mining in 1970. This would imply a reduction of only about 84,000—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"] There has been a much bigger reduction in past years without involving great unemployment. One realises that this sort of programme produces very real social problems and very understandable fears among those affected, but the answer is that at the moment there is an increase in colliery manpower. The miners must realise that with an economic coal mining industry there is a very real future indeed for them.

Mr. Patrick Jenkin: When does the right hon. Gentleman propose to produce the next edition, as it were, of the energy White Paper? There have been some stories that it will be produced in the middle of the year. Can he say what the whole demand for coal production is likely to be by 1970? Is it not likely that by then it will be down to 80 million or 100 million tons a year?

Mr. Marsh: I have no information about a White Paper and, therefore, do not know the figures which would he in it.

Mr. Eadie: Will my right hon. Friend consider the lines of communication in this matter? In the past when the miners' union met the National Coal Board it has been told that it is the Government who close pits, and when it has met the Government it has been told that it is the Coal Board which closes pits. Can we have some clarification of this matter?

Mr. Marsh: I do not think there is any difficulty about this. The position is a very clear one. The responsibility for mining coal efficiently is the responsibility of the National Coal Board. Clearly the


Government have, quite rightly and properly, a duty to examine social implications of the policies of any large section of industry, but there is no cause for doubt as to where responsibilities lie.

Mr. Varley: Has the attention of my right hon. Friend been drawn to a front page article in the Financial Times on 30th September, where it was suggested that if the present drain continued the shortfall of production per annum in the coal industry would be something like 135 million tons and the only way in which it could be made up would be by importing more oil from overseas with a consequent drain on balance of payments?

Mr. Marsh: Anyone is entitled to make his own forecast of the possible figures of coal production in years to come. The Ministry of Power is engaged in a very big project in working out optimum energy policy. The future for the coal mining industry lies in producing coal at the most economic price at which it can be produced, but the problem is not one of producing but of selling coal.

Sir G. Nabarro: Will the right hon. Gentleman make clear that the fundamental of pits policy in regard to coal mining is that every pit operating shall be utterly efficient and that he will not keep open any "ancient monuments"?

Mr. Marsh: A policy as doctrinaire as that applied to nationalised industry would be as unhelpful as if the same policy applied to the private sector.

Oral Answers to Questions — TECHNOLOGY

Mechanical Engineering

Mr. Biffen: asked the Minister of Technology if he is aware of the suggestion in the recent report of the Economic Development Committee for Mechanical Engineering that overall output in 1967 is unlikely to exceed the 1966 level; if this represents the expectation of his Department; and if he will make a statement.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Dr. Jeremy Bray): Yes, Sir. This conclusion was in accordance with my right hon. Friend's

expectations, but the report was written before the announcement of the increase in investment grants.

Mr. Biffen: Is it the supposition of the hon. Gentleman that the change in investment grants is likely to have a significant effect upon the level of output in the mechanical engineering industry in 1967? If that is so, will he tell the House how much and on what evidence he bases his conclusion?

Dr. Bray: I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that it is probably too early to get any objective estimates of the precise effects of these grants. I am grateful to him for drawing industry's attention yet again to the great advantages of maintaining its investment at this time.

Automation

Mr. James Dickens: asked the Minister of Technology if he will set up an inquiry into the effects of automation on the British economy in the period to 1975.

Dr. Bray: A number of inquiries relating to the effect of automation are already in hand, but it is not a subject suitable for a single all-embracing inquiry.

Mr. Dickens: Does my hon. Friend agree that experience in North America amply illustrates that automation introduced by an unplanned, free enterprise system simply leads to a situation that that system cannot cope with? Does he further agree that the imperative need in this country is for the Government to learn from this experience and to ensure that automation introduced by the private sector comes as part of central and regional economic planning so that the effects of automation on training and on location of industry are appropriately dealt with?

Dr. Bray: As my hon. Friend knows, we are certainly taking a wide range of action in relation to the planning of industry, by industry and by region. The industrial training boards are vastly increasing the scale of their activities. We have a Royal Commission working on the trade unions at present. The whole National Plan and the machinery of the Plan is under review. My hon. Friend can therefore be assured that it


is the Government's aim to pursue a constructive policy in relation to the planning of automation and not to allow any evil consequences to develop.

Shipbuilding

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology when he will make available grants for the modernisation of shipyards under the Geddes proposals.

Mr. McMaster: asked the Minister of Technology when he intends to introduce legislation necessary to implement the main financial recommendations of the Geddes Committee on Shipbuilding; and if he will make a statement.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): I am aiming to introduce legislation, along the lines recommended in the Geddes Report, shortly.

Mr. Digby: Is the Minister aware that the delay is becoming serious and that, while the Government go on delaying and getting behind the programme of Geddes, the situation is deteriorating?

Mr. Benn: There has been no delay. The Government have kept up entirely with the timetable laid down in the Geddes Report. The tax reliefs were granted in the Finance Act. The Shipbuilding Industry Board has been set up. We are now waiting for the shipbuilding firms to submit their merger plans to the Board.

Mr. Wingfield Digby: asked the Minister of Technology whether he is aware of the need for orders for shipyards, both new ships and conversions, in view of the contraction of the order book; and what steps he proposes to take.

Mr. Blenkinsop: asked the Minister of Technology whether he will make a statement on improving credit facilities for British shipowners placing orders for new construction in British yards.

Mr. Benn: Yes, Sir. Though British industry now has over 2 million tons on order, I am aware that some yards will need further business shortly if they are to maintain a smooth flow of work. I am now considering representations made to me by shipbuilders about credit

facilities in the light of the overriding need for reorganisation of the industry.

Mr. Digby: Did not Geddes recommend legislation last year, in 1966? Is it not necessary to sustain the home order book—the traditional book—for this industry by doing something quickly about credit facilities?

Mr. Benn: There are two points involved in the hon. Gentleman's question. One is the question of the timetable for the Government under Geddes. It was to the end of last year for the preparation of the legislation. This will come forward within a few weeks of Parliament's meeting in 1967. The other point about credit facilities bearing on the hon. Gentleman's question is that, as I have said, I am considering representations made.

Mr. Blenkinsop: Can my right hon. Friend make an early statement on the question of credit facilities, particularly in view of the type of case I have submitted to him, which affects particularly orders for shipbuilding by home owners, and where there are some real dangers of orders being cancelled unless action is taken promptly.

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend's representations are among those I have received. I certainly should make a statement as soon as I could.

Decimal Currency

Mr. G. Campbell: asked the Minister of Technology what consultations he has had with the computer industry about the choice of unit for a decimal currency; and with what result.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Edmund Dell): None, Sir, but representatives of a number of computer manufacturers gave evidence or submitted memoranda to the Committee of Enquiry on Decimal Currency.

Mr. Campbell: As a decision on the system has still to be made, will the Minister consider carefully the advantages of working with a pure decimal system rather than one involving a fraction?

Mr. Dell: This is not an important element in the decision, as the £ unit


will make little practical difference to efficiency in commercial data processing. Indeed computers, being basically binary machines, are really good at multiplying or dividing by two.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: In the technological age in which we are supposed to be living, is it not really ridiculous to keep the halfpenny going for another two generations as is planned?

Mr. Dell: That is a question for my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

YOUTH EXCHANGE PROGRAMMES

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the Government's commitment to internationalism, as expressed in their policies towards Europe and the United Nations, he will, in addition to the support already provided through the Ministry of Overseas Development for longer-term volunteer service in the developing countries, give direct responsibility to an appropriate Department for encouraging and, where necessary, financially supporting youth exchange programmes, including short-term international community service projects.

The First Secretary of State and Secretary of State for Economic Affairs (Mr. Michael Stewart): I have been asked to reply.
My right hon. Friend is not at present convinced of the necessity for a new centrally organised programme but would of course be happy to consider any points my hon. Friend cared to put to him.

Mr. Judd: Is my right hon. Friend aware that in other West European countries, particularly the Netherlands, France and Germany, grants by Governments amount to as much as £80,000 for programmes of this sort? Is it not high time that the British Government gave practical support to this important social education for young people?

Mr. Stewart: There are at present in this country limited funds available for some exchanges of young people. At present it is not possible to think of increasing these schemes, but my right hon. Friend will bear in mind what has been said.

Mr. Weatherill: Will the First Secretary recognise that this type of youth exchange and international community service to which his hon. Friend refers is a very much more effective kind of aid than straight cash and very much less expensive? Will he do everything he can to help and encourage it, since it is good for our youth and good for international understanding?

Mr. Stewart: No one would question its value. At present the education departments finance the Central Bureau for Educational Visits and Exchanges. Local education authorities have authority to incur expenditure for such exchanges and the British Travel Association assists in making the possibilities known.

RHODESIA

Mr. Ian Lloyd: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the Rhodesian situation.

Mr. Fisher: asked the Prime Minister if he will make a statement about recent developments in the Rhodesian problem.

Mr. Judd: asked the Prime Minister whether the British Government regard themselves are now being firmly committed to the principle of no independence before majority rule in Rhodesia.

Mr. Winnick: asked the Prime Minister what is the latest position with regard to Rhodesia.

Mr. Sandys: .asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

Mr. Hastings: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on Rhodesia.

Sir J. Rodgers: asked the Prime Minister what further steps he now contemplates to try to reach agreement with the régime in Rhodesia.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
The Rhodesian situation, and Her Majesty's Government's attitude towards it, remain as described by my right hon. Friend in this House on the 20th December last and my right hon. Friend has no further Statement to make to the House as yet.

Mr. Lloyd: Does the First Secretary realise that what he has just said will be received in the country with the enthusiasm appropriate to someone who has just discovered that he has cut his own throat? Can he now give the House some solid assurance that Her Majesty's Government appreciate both the scale and the permanence of the economic damage which is being done and that their present posture on Rhodesia is about as convincing as Lady Godiva on a camel?

Mr. Stewart: I think that the seriousness of the situation merits a more serious comment than that. Her Majesty's Government are very well aware of all that is involved in this situation. It was that which guided my right hon. Friend's statement, and that describes the Government's position.

Mr. Fisher: Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that we shall have to negotiate a settlement of the Rhodesian problem sooner or later—

Hon. Members: Go to Trafalgar Square.

Mr. Fisher: —that remark shows only that hon. Members did not hear my speech there—but that this cannot be—done—I say this in no unfriendly spirit—in the new and unrealistic policy of no independence before majority rule, because there is a demand for unconditional surrender to which no Government of Rhodesia, however moderate, could possibly agree?

Mr. Stewart: If one wants negotiation—and one does—the first step must be a return to legality. As to negotiations with the present illegal régime, they are living in an unreal world and a bygone century, as the hon. Gentleman himself said last Sunday.

Mr. Judd: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that the Government will make it abundantly clear that they now regard the principle of no independence before majority rule as of much more fundamental significance than the seven principles which have so often been referred to in the past? Can my right hon. Friend further assure us that the Government are prepared to take all necessary action to make the present policy of mandatory sanctions effective?

Mr. Stewart: The Government stand quite firmly by the statement of the principle of no independence before majority rule. It is our intention to carry out the policy of mandatory sanctions. There will be a report to the Security Council on 1st March on the working of mandatory sanctions, and Her Majesty's Government stand resolutely behind that policy.

Mr. Winnick: Can my right hon. Friend give us no clue as to how mandatory sanctions by other members of the United Nations are working? Further, does he know whether the Leader of the Opposition in this Parliament has dissociated himself from the disgraceful and provocative rally organised on Sunday by the right hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys)?

Mr. Stewart: I do not know the answer to the second part of the question. I think that we await it with interest. As to the first part of the question, we should await the Secretary-General's report to the Security Council, but it is clear that there is massive international support for the policy approved by the Security Council.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Sandys.

Mr. Sandys: rose—

Mr. Raphael Tuck: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Watford (Mr. Raphael Tuck) must conduct himself properly. Mr. Duncan Sandys.

Mr. Sandys: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that after the meeting referred to, at which I advocated the resumption of talks with Rhodesia, the Minister of State, Commonwealth Affairs, issued a statement attacking me in terms which I am advised amount virtually to a charge of treason? Will the right hon. Gentleman clearly dissociate the Government from this grave and utterly unfair accusation?

Mr. Stewart: The right hon. Gentleman attacks so many people that he really should not fuss so much when he is attacked himself. If he chooses to hold meetings like that held last Sunday, he should notice some of the kind of people who support him.

Mr. Hastings: Has the right hon. Gentleman's attention been drawn to the recent speech of Mr. Dean Acheson on the Rhodesian question? Is he aware of the growing opposition in Congress to United States involvement in the U.N. campaign started by Her Majesty's Government? Can he say whether Her Majesty's Government have or have not taken soundings of the United States Government about the use of force?

Mr. Stewart: The answer to the latter part of the question is, "No, Sir". I do not think what was said earlier contravenes at all the point that I made a little while ago that we have solid international support for the policy of mandatory sanctions, and we and the other nations will proceed with it.

Sir J. Rodgers: As the right hon. Gentleman has no plans dealing with the impasse to reveal to the House at the moment, may I ask him to see that in-formation regarding dangerous drugs is passed immediately by his right hon. Friend the Minister of Health to the Rhodesians and not held up as appears to be the case?

Mr. Stewart: I think that that question possibly should be put on the Paper.

Mr. Lubbock: What steps is the right hon. Gentleman taking to make contact with and to encourage the 3,500 people in Rhodesia who replied to an advertisement opposing the Smith régime and advocating the adoption of the sort of proposals which were made on H.M.S. "Tiger"?

Mr. Stewart: That is a rather different question from the others which have been asked, but I accept the importance of what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Maudling: Reverting to the question asked by my right hon. Friend the Member for Streatham (Mr. Sandys), may I ask the First Secretary whether he regards the advocacy of further talks with Rhodesia as tantamount to something like treason?

Mr. Stewart: That is a question on which it might be better to get a legal opinion. I should have thought it was perfectly clear that remarks like that strengthen any there may be in Rhodesia who want to continue illegality. Anyone

who claims to have any influence in Rhodesia might better use it to urge people there to return to legality.

NEWSPAPER INDUSTRY

Mr. Moonman: asked the Prime Minister if he will seek to convene a meeting of newspaper proprietors and trade union leaders of the printing industry to examine the influence of advertising on circulation, work practices and ways of making economies to ensure a varied and balanced British Press.

Dr. John Dunwoody: asked the Prime Minister what representations have been made to him regarding the present state of the Press; and whether he will seek to take action to avoid the further closure of national daily newspapers.

Mr. Boston: asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint an inquiry to examine the financial structure of the Press and to recommend possible ways of overcoming its long-standing financial difficulties.

Mr. M. Stewart: I have been asked to reply.
I would refer my hon. Friends to the Answer my right hon. Friend gave on 20th December to a Question by my hon. Friend the Member for Carlisle (Mr. Ron Lewis).—[Vol. 738, c. 295.] I understand that the Joint Board for the National Newspaper Industry is publishing the Economist Intelligence Unit Survey tomorrow and the Government will consider the Survey and the action which the Joint Board propose to take on it.

Mr. Moonman: In thanking my right hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask two supplementary questions? First, would my right hon. Friend agree that such a meeting would give practical force to the Prime Minister's statement on the newspaper industry? Secondly, in view of the current speculation about the closure of another national newspaper before the end of the year, would my right hon. Friend say what sort of steps the Prime Minister will take to try to solve this problem?

Mr. Stewart: I think the answer to both questions is that we ought to await


the consideration by the Joint Board of the E.I.U. Survey. It is important that we should know the newspaper world's reaction to this before we proceed to the consideration of what action, if any, would be appropriate for the Government to undertake.

Dr. Dunwoody: Would not my right hon. Friend agree that there is considerable and increasing concern at the tendency for the concentration of the ownership of the national Press into fewer and fewer hands? If the tendency continues, some form of Government action will be necessary if we are to maintain a free Press in which the whole range of political opinions can be expressed.

Mr. Stewart: That might well be, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that the next appropriate step is to get the reactions of the industry itself to the Survey.

Mr. Boston: In considering what action to take, would my right hon. Friend bear in mind two points: first, the urgent short-term need perhaps for an investigation into the financial structure of the Press to see what help, if any, might be given; and secondly, the longer-term need for an inquiry, perhaps a Royal Commission, to look into the whole of the future of the national Press?

Mr. Stewart: One can bear these points in mind, but I think my hon. Friend will agree that when he talks of financial support he raises a very big and debatable issue.

Mr. Crawley: Would the right hon. Gentleman agree that the gravest danger to the Press would be a form of subsidy which would give any Government power of control?

Mr. Stewart: Certainly, there are objections to that. Whether it is the gravest danger which could befall the Press is arguable.

Mr. Heath: The House is greatly concerned about the present position of some newspapers, but will the right hon. Gentleman recognise that it is the Government's policies in the past two years which have done a great deal to bring about some of the economic difficulties of the newspapers today? Will he give an undertaking that nothing which the Government propose

will lead to any financial assistance which could cause pressure on the Press or lead to any interference with a free Press? Will he give that firm assurance now?

Mr. Stewart: It is clear that one must not take any action which would interfere with the freedom of the Press. As to the earlier part of the question, I do not think that is so. I do not think any impartial examination of the facts would bear it out.

Mr. Mendelson: Does my right hon. Friend recall that when my hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced the Government's approval of the transfer of The Times on the last day before the Christmas Recess he was pressed by several hon. Members on both sides of the House for an early debate? After consultation with my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, he then promised that the Government would give early consideration to that request. Could my right hon. Friend now confirm that an early debate will be arranged by the Government?

Mr. Stewart: That is really a question for my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House, but I think that he is considering the desirability of a debate here.

Mr. Marquand: Will my right hon. Friend agree that if the present situation continues, and we leave the newspaper industry to the tender mercies of what are sometimes called natural economic forces, the process of concentration is bound to continue and it would be not only legitimate but desirable for the Government to intervene actively in favour of those newspapers which seek primarily to be a public service rather than primarily to make a profit? Will he agree that this is a perfectly legitimate distinction which avoids the problem mentioned by some hon. Members opposite?

Mr. Stewart: That is certainly a point of view to which attention should be given, but I think that before any pronouncement of policy we should await the industry's reaction to the Survey.

Sir C. Osborne: The First Secretary will recall that in a speech the Prime Minister attacked the blackmail of the trade unions involved. The trade union leaders resented this and there has been correspondence between the Prime Minister and the trade union leaders. Would


the right hon. Gentleman consider publishing the correspondence on this very vexed question as a White Paper so that we may know the facts?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Member might like to put down that question and see what answer he gets.

MONETARY AND CREDIT POLICIES (INTERNATIONAL CO-ORDINATION)

The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. James Callaghan): As the House is aware, the Government have felt for some time that there may be room for greater international co-ordination between those countries whose monetary and credit policies are liable to have a particularly significant effect in the world.
In my speech to the International Monetary Fund last September, I pointed out the danger that tight credit and high interest rates which may be appropriate to any one country in the management of its own affairs can lead to competitive increases round the world from which none of us gains and all of us suffer. What is needed if it can be achieved is a measure of international disarmament of interest rates.
It is for this reason that, after some preliminary discussion with my colleagues overseas, I invited M. Debré, of France, Professor Schiller, of the Federal German Republic, Signor Colombo, of Italy, and Mr. Fowler, of the United States, to the meeting which will be held at Chequers next weekend.
I am glad to tell the House that all of them readily accepted the invitation. We shall be having exploratory talks with a view to reaching a better understanding of the bearing on each other's positions of the monetary measures that we each take, and it is the Government's hope that they will lead in due course to improved co-ordination between our countries which will be of practical benefit to us all.

Mr. Iain Macleod: The Chancellor of the Exchequer will be aware that this initiative and this meeting will be warmly supported on both sides of the House. Could he tell us whether he intends to issue a communiqué after the weekend, or to report to the House next week?

Mr. Callaghan: I think that we should have to discuss among the five Ministers whether a communiqué should be issued or not, but if not I will certainly undertake to report back to the House. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for what he says about the initiative.

Mr. Ronald Bell: Will the Chancellor consider at that meeting the advisability of pressing for an increase in the price of gold and the adoption of a floating exchange rate as solutions to the grave economic problems of the Western world?

Mr. Callaghan: The meeting is not being called primarily for the purpose of discussing either the price of gold or international liquidity, although, naturally, I suppose that if any Minister were to raise those topics his colleagues would listen. I would be bound to make it clear if such topics were raised that in the view of Her Majesty's Government—and indeed it is far more widely spread than that—a proposal to raise the price of gold would not solve any of the problems with which the Western world is faced.

Mr. Biffen: Would the Chancellor not agree that practically all the Government's international activities at the moment must be seen in the context of the decision to seek membership of the Common Market? Will he therefore bear in mind the validity of the observation of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell), for unless the British Government show some sympathy with and appreciation of the views associated with the French over the price of gold there is very little likelihood of British membership of the Common Market?

Mr. Callaghan: It would be entirely against the interests price of gold to be circumstances—[An HON. MEMBER: "Why?"]—because our gold-valued liabilities exceed our gold stock and if one doubles one one doubles the other. It is as simple as that.
Apart from that, it is not in the interests of the world that we should attempt to deal with the problem of increasing world liquidity by doubling the value of the gold stocks of those countries which happen to hold gold and have made it a business to hold gold, as against the would be entirely of Britain for the


large number of other countries which have not had that opportunity.

Mr. Shinwell: Will my right hon. Friend be good enough to answer the question just addressed to him and take note of the implications? He is surely aware that Mr. Maurice Schumann stated recently that one of the conditions that must be accepted by this country before we are allowed to enter the Common Market is that we agree to double the price of gold.

Mr. Callaghan: I noticed that observation and a great many others, but as far as I know Mr. Maurice Schumann is not negotiating on behalf of the French Government and his speeches have as much value as those of any other private commentator on this subject. There should be no misunderstanding about this matter as regards the price of gold. I know of no one who studies the issue who believes that that is the best way to increase international liquidity.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis: When the Chancellor rose just now we thought that he was going to tell us something. Is he not wasting our time? Is he aware that the announcement he has just made has appeared in every newspaper in the country? How did that happen?

Mr. Callaghan: It appeared in every newspaper in the country because when five countries are concerned we have to agree about the date of publication. I reflected on whether I should take up the time of the House on this matter and came to the conclusion that if I did not make a statement I would probably be criticised for not having told the House about it.

Mr. Ginsburg: Would my right hon. Friend be a little less dogmatic on the question of the price of gold? Will he read the Labour Party's policy statement for 1953, in which he will find that this was considered to be one possible way of dealing with the problem of international liquidity?

Mr. Callaghan: Of course, raising the price of gold is a possible way of increasing world liquidity. What we are concerned with is whether it is a way which would be beneficial to Britain and the world. I have already stated quite

shortly and succinctly three separate reasons why it will not be.

Mr. Ian Lloyd: As the United States appears to be moving, however tentatively, towards a position where it intends to include its fissile materials in its international monetary reserves, could the Chancellor not suggest that this is perhaps a much more rational method of increasing international liquidity and one which he himself should consider following?

Mr. Callaghan: We are in danger of launching out into very broad discussion. I suppose that almost anything will be in order when we meet at Chequers on Saturday and Sunday. But I say most seriously that the best way to increase international liquidity in the Government's view—and certainly very strongly in my view—is to pursue the schemes that have been worked out with such great care and considerable agreement among many of the major nations in the world and not to discard that kind of scheme, when we are approaching a point at which we might get agreement, in favour of some other method which, in the view of all of us, I think—certainly of most of us—would be far inferior.

ROOTES MOTORS LTD.

The Minister of Technology (Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn): In December, 1966, the Government were asked by Rootes Motors Ltd. what their attitude would be to an application by the Chrysler Corporation for Treasury consent under the Exchange Control Act, 1947, to enable them to inject more capital into Rootes and, in the process, to obtain control of Rootes.
This request was considered by the Government in the light of the exchange of letters between the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) and Chrysler in 1964, when Chrysler first made a substantial investment in Rootes.
On that occasion Chrysler gave an assurance that it would not act to take control "against the wishes of the British Government of the day"; and the then Chancellor of the Exchequer, the right hon. Member for Barnet, in return gave an assurance that in reaching a decision about the transfer of control to Chrysler


the Government would "take into account the interests of a prosperous and viable development of the motor car industry in general and of the Rootes business in particular".
The Government have, therefore, in the context of the recent Rootes approach, consulted the leaders of the principal British-owned motor vehicle firms to see whether a viable solution designed to enable Rootes to continue as a British-controlled company could be devised. No such scheme proved practicable.
Before reaching a decision the Government sought from Chrysler a number of undertakings about its future policy for the Rootes Group. These included maintenance of a majority of British directors on the Board of Rootes; an exchange of directors with Chrysler International S.A. and Simca S.A.: confirmation of Rootes' expansion and development plans, particularly at Linwood in Scotland—where the major development involving substantial increase in employment will take place; the expansion of exports to all practicable markets; and the offer of a participation by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation in Rootes—carrying with it the right to nominate one director to the Board—in order to maintain a stronger British interest than otherwise seemed possible. Chrysler has given these important undertakings.
The Board of Trade have considered whether this transaction should be referred to the Monopolies Commission for investigation and report. However, in the light of the informatio navailable to them, they have decided that the public interest does not require that such a reference should be made.
In all the circumstances, the Government have decided not to object to the Chrysler proposal. The necessary Treasury consents have been given.
At the request of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State, made under Section 2(i,b) of the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation Act, 1966, the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has agreed to a participation in Rootes in accordance with Chrysler's undertaking.
I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT my exchange of letters with Chrysler containing the important undertakings required by the Government and

given by Chrysler. Copies are now available in the Vote Office.
I should like to announce a more general decision taken, arising from the full and detailed examination made into this matter. The Government are convinced that the British-controlled firms would gain greatly if they could cooperate much more fully in overseas marketing arrangements. The Industrial Reorganisation Corporation has, therefore, also agreed to discuss with the British-controlled motor manufacturing firms the possibility of close co-ordination and co-operation between them in their efforts overseas.

Mr. David Price: I am sure that the whole House will be grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his full statement. I should like to ask a few very preliminary questions.
Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the immediate urgency for Rootes to make these new arrangements with Chryslers is the direct consequence of the sustained credit squeeze and the lack of liquidity in British industry?
I would also ask, as to the participation by the I.R.C. in the equity of Rootes, when Chryslers has agreed in writing to the right hon. Gentleman to maintain a majority of British directors on the board of Rootes, why it is necessary to have I.R.C. participation in order to maintain British interests on the Rootes Board, especially when the I.R.C. will have the right to withdraw after 1st January, 1972?
Would the right hon. Gentleman also tell the House whether this participation by the I.R.C. was sought by Rootes, by Chrysler, or by the I.R.C. itself?
Further, can the right hon. Member tell us what is to be the position of B.M.C. and the Leyland group vis-à-vis the Government now that the Government themselves, through the I.R.C., have become one of their direct competitors?
Finally, so that justice may be done to members of the present Government, may I ask two questions which the Chancellor of the Exchequer asked my right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) on 8th June, 1964? First, is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that this change of effective control of Rootes is in the interests of the British motor car industry as distinct from that of the


Americans? Secondly, what is the Government's policy on the question of the control of the motor car industry by overseas capital? We have now well passed the 50 per cent. mark.

Mr. Benn: The hon. Gentleman has raised many questions. Perhaps I might take the last one first. As he knows better than most people, and his right hon. Friend the Member for Barnet (Mr. Maudling) knows it even better, the decision taken in 1964 was effectively the decision that conditioned what action could be taken by us now.
The position was that the Chrysler penetration was even fuller than became evident in the exchanges in July, 1964, in that 62 per cent. of the ordinary equity was owned by Chrysler when the crisis arose, and 45 per cent. of the voting shares. Therefore, this does not reflect any change of view by us on the general question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] Not at all. The position is that two and a half years after the right hon. Gentleman described his earlier acceptance as a very good thing for the motor industry, the firm to which he was referring became insolvent; and this has some bearing on the position which confronted us now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Come to the point."] I will come to the point.
Over the last five-year period Rootes' return on net capital employed was 0·3 per cent. on average. Rootes' lost £3 million in the year ended 31st July last year, but before the July measures took effect, although there is no doubt that the measures may have affected the speed with which the crisis developed. The basic fact confronting us was that Rootes was insolvent and that the British employment and expansion plans in that company were threatened.
The rôle of I.R.C., as I made clear, was at the insistence of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. We believe it right that there should be a director on the Board representing British interests. It astonishes me that the hon. Gentleman should not object to American control or foreign control of a British motor company, but should object to the British public being represented through I.R.C.
As to the question of B.M.C.-Leyland, they are not, of course, competing in this

sense because they are interested in their export consortium arrangements which I.R.C. is hoping to arrange. I.R.C. can remain in the Rootes group as long as it wishes to do so.

Mr. Edelman: While noting the consistency of the support given by the Opposition to a policy of surrender to United States financial and industrial interests, may I ask my right hon. Friend also to note that the motor workers at Coventry, and many hon. Members on this side of the House and millions of people in the country are deeply disturbed by the take-over, for that is what it is despite my right hon. Friend's ingenuity of presentation and, indeed, the whitewash which surrounds the description of the operation which has taken place.
Will my right hon. Friend also note that what has now happened fully bears out what the Prime Minister forecast when he was in opposition, namely, that before long Rootes would go the way of Simca, and in these circumstances will he now say what the circumstances are which have caused the Government Front Bench to make such a complete turnabout by which a key British strategic industry is now handed over, in effect, to United States' control?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend brought a deputation to see me on this subject on Friday, and there were eight points to which it drew attention, with his support. Every one of them was covered by the conditions that the Government insisted upon in relation to Chrysler: condition No. 1, job security and policy to be decided with reference to United Kingdom interests; condition No. 2, majority of United Kingdom directors; condition No. 3, the expansion plans confirmed, including Linwood; and also exports and guarantee of access by Rootes to the Chrysler International Organisation management, Government investment, and an I.R.C. director.
The take-over of Rootes by the British Government—which, of course, was considered, but would have involved massive sums of public money going into an insolvent private enterprise company without any guarantee that in this way it could remain viable—was not a practicable proposition. The alternative that we considered—I referred to it in my statement—was the possibility that we


might have gone into partnership with the British-controlled firms to sustain Rootes, but in view of the technological, managerial and financial entanglement arising out of the 1964 arrangement this did not prove to be practicable, either.

Miss Harvie Anderson: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there will be widespread relief in my constituency that the injection of this additional American capital will go some way to offset the disastrous consequences of the Government's policy, which has resulted at Linwood in a two-day working week for many months?

Mr. Benn: If the hon. Lady proposes to make a point about the Government's rôle in the motor industry she might take account of the many millions of pounds of Government money put into the industry in development areas to provide employment—including Linwood, where employment is a major consideration.
It is interesting to note the reaction of the Opposition. We are now engaged in an inquest into the total failure of private enterprise. That is what we are discussing at the moment, in considering the future of the Rootes group. The Government have been able to make arrangements which guarantee that British interests will be safeguarded in these circumstances and to that extent the hon. Lady's constituents and others will find some security in their employment through these arrangements.

Mr. Rankin: When we postulated the possibility of private enterprise failing, we never at the same time said that we would bring in Americans to rescue our private business. Did we not put forward another solution—that the Government should step in at that point and take over? Why are we not doing so now?

Mr. Benn: I have explained these considerations in my statement, but I will refer to them again. The issue is simple. We did not believe that Rootes by itself was a viable organisation with or without Government money, owned or not owned by a British company. The alternative we pursued to see whether it was practicable would have involved substantial Government investment in Rootes and then a merger which would not, however,

have resulted in Government control of the consequential company. This solution was not practical because of the degree of technological, engineering, managerial and financial entanglements arising out of the previous arrangements.

Sir H. Legge-Bourke: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether the inclusion of the I.R.C. in the new set-up means that it is coming in in any way as a financial contributor using the powers that Parliament has recently given?

Mr. Benn: Certainly, the Corporation is using the powers that this House gave in the 1966 Act. It is using them at the request of my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State under Section 2(1,b) to see that British interests are represented on the Board of what will now be an American-controlled company. Such a situation was contemplated when the Act was introduced. I would have thought that such a course would have commended itself to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Orme: My right hon. Friend has said that private enterprise has failed in this matter. He says, in essence, that the Government cannot take over the firm because it is not viable. But why, therefore, are the Americans putting capital into it? I draw my right hon. Friend's attention to the fact that, if we are to have a viable motor industry in this country, we shall have to do what the French and the Germans have done—take a large measure of public control over it.

Mr. Benn: The Chrysler Corporation is putting in money to protect the investment it made in 1964. From our point of view, we were concerned to maintain employment in this firm and the motor industry. Our doubts about this did not arise from anti-American feeling, but from the anxiety that Britain, looking ahead over a period of years, might not be able to sustain three large American corporations and a British corporation when the United States, which is three times our size and has a much larger output, can sustain only three corporations.
It was our look at the future of the industry which led us to have anxiety about the arrangements which, unfortunately, we were unable to avoid, but we believe that we have reached the best possible conditions in safeguarding


against the risks which are in my mind as well as the mind of my hon. Friend.

Mr. Edelman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend has referred to an interview which I had last Friday with him, when I met him with a number of shop stewards representing the workers of the Rootes group. In the course of our discussion, my right hon. Friend suggested that the meeting should be private. May I ask whether it is in the interests of orderly debate that my right hon. Friend should give an ex parte account of proceedings in a private interview of which I have had no notice and no opportunity to reply? Is that in accord with the traditions of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: All I can do is rule on the question of whether or not it is in order. Nothing that is not in order has happened this afternoon. The hon. Gentleman must take up the personal matter with the Minister.

Mr. Lubbock: If the Rootes group is not viable and is insolvent, as the Minister has said, is it not in the interests of the workers in the company that American capital should be put in so as to safeguard their jobs? Has it not the additional advantage from the British point of view that the injection of £20 million of American capital will lead to the introduction of American "know-how" and advanced technology to a greater extent in the company than hitherto?

Mr. Benn: There is some point in that argument, but it does not follow that, whenever a British firm runs into difficulty, one should expect it to be rescued by overseas investment which leads to a take-over. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said in 1964, it is one thing for foreign firms to come in bringing "know-how" and technology, and establishing firms here, but another thing that, whenever British firms run into difficulties, they should be taken over by overseas companies.
We greatly welcome overseas investment in general, but we are bound to look at it also in the light of the development of certain key industries in this country. That is why we hoped to find an alternative in this case.
My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) has referred

to the meeting I had with him and shop stewards on Friday. I promised them that I would give consideration to the points put to me and he and I rehearsed them. I was anxious in my statement and answers to show that I had met every point, but if, in doing so, he feels that I have breached the confidence of himself and the deputation, then I apologise.

Mr. Maudling: The right hon. Gentleman has said that it is necessary to have a representative of the I.R.C. on the Board to see that British interests are protected. Is it his argument that only a State organisation can have regard to British interests?

Mr. Benn: Certainly not, but the right hon. Gentleman knows that, when one is considering the future of an industry and the possibility of rationalisation and a take-over by a big international company, it might follow, as a result of market changes, that decisions may be taken which might adversely affect the British element of the corporation. We have seen a vivid example in the case of the French computer industry. We felt that the British public should be represented through the I.R.C. and I think that the right hon. Gentleman will agree that only the I.R.C. can perform this rôle.

Mr. Chapman: Does not this situation reinforce the case for a National Economic Development Council for the motor industry so that all these factors can be considered in the context of the industry as a whole? How long is the announcement on this to be delayed? When the Ford enterprise here finally came under American control assurances were given to the effect that the policy of British Ford would never be subordinated to American commercial interests. Is this agreement as good as that, or better?

Mr. Benn: It is my right hon. Friend the First Secretary of State who will be making a statement about an E.D.C. for the industry, because he is responsible for that. The Government are keen to get it. The only delay is arising out of the existence of the National Advisory Council in the motor industry and through consideration of the relations between the two bodies and the way to bring both sides together. This is a technical point.


I doubt whether discussion of sensitive points such as mergers and developments of this kind could easily be discussed in the context of a "Little Neddy".
When my hon. Friend reads the exchange of letters in the OFFICIAL REPORT he will see that the assurances by the Chrysler Corporation are based entirely on best endeavours and lay down some criteria on which they can be judged. The participation of the I.R.C. provides better security in this case than we had under the previous arrangements made with the Ford Motor Company.

Mr. Kershaw: How much money will I.R.C. be providing?

Mr. Benn: I.R.C. is issuing its own Press statement today. Roughly, it amounts to about £3 million.

Mr. Michael Foot: Will my right hon. Friend take into account that whereas the only object of hon. Members opposite on this procedure seems to be that the British public shall retain some representation, what we on this side of the House are concerned to do is to secure that the British public shall have effective representation? When my right hon. Friends says that he could not get the cash to propose an alternative method, will he tell the House what is the good of the British Government and the British people thinking that they can have troops all over the world if we cannot even own our own industry?

Mr. Benn: My hon. Friend misses the point of the alternative which we sought. The problem here was that if we had nationalised Rootes we should have been left, even then, with a company which, in technological terms, was not of a scale which could survive at a critical moment. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] If my hon. Friends want to know why, I will give the reason. The reason is that Rootes' expansion plans which are currently being developed depend entirely, as a result of the 1964 arrangement, on the technological interests of Chrysler; their marketing aspects have been integrated, their managerial and financial arrangements have been integrated.
The act of nationalisation would have severed the link with the company upon which the future of Rootes currently

depends. This was the consideration, with no regard to international matters. These were the factors which we had to take into account. If we had been able to set up the alternative, involving a British-controlled motor industry, then, of course, we still would not have had control of it, because the Rootes element would have been a minority element.

Sir John Rodgers: Is not the statement about I.R.C. representation and about there being a majority of British people on the board all eyewash? Does not the Minister agree that the effective decisions will come from the majority shareholders against the background of Chrysler's world interests?

Mr. Benn: These were the considerations which led us to impose some very stiff conditions which the hon. Member will see when he reads the exchange of letters. It is true that where there is a transfer of control one is bound to get a majority influence exercised by the majority shareholder. But the hon. Member might mention that even before this crisis developed, 62 per cent. of the equity of Rootes was owned by Chrysler—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] And 45 per cent. of the voting shares. I was going to give both figures. For practical purposes, had we tried an alternative arrangement we should not only have had to provide the money to inject into the firm for the short-term needs to buy out Rootes and Chrysler, but we should then have had to take over a unit which would not have been viable, for reasons which I have given.

Mr. Dalyell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that many Scots will be curious to know the precise nature of the undertakings given by Chrysler on the future of Linwood?

Mr. Benn: Scots who have been to the Vote Office will already have had their anxieties allayed, because there is a specific reference in Undertaking No. 3:
Chrysler confirms the plans of expansion covering development work at various factories and especially at Linwood in Scotland, where the major development will take place and where it is planned to increase employment by several thousands; these plans are essential if Rootes is to remain competitive, achieve its proper share of exports and return to reasonable profitability".
I can tell my hon. Friend that the employment prospects at Linwood were


uppermost in our minds when we decided to reach the arrangements which I have just announced to the House, and I think that on that ground alone this arrangement should recommend itself to the Scots.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must protect the business of the House.

Following are the letters:

Letter of 16th January, 1967, from the Right Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, M.P., Minister of Technology, to Mr. I. J. Minett, Group Vice President, Chrysler Corporation.
I refer to the discussions which have taken place between us about your proposals for an injection of further funds into Rootes, which would have the effect of control of Rootes passing to Chrysler Corporation (Chrysler). Under these proposals additional funds of up to about £20 million would be made available to Rootes, as to approximately £10 million by a rights issue of Preferred Ordinary Shares to Rootes shareholders which would be underwritten by Chrysler by an issue of Unsecured Loan Stock. On taking up their entitlement under the rights issue Chrysler would obtain voting control of Rootes.
I am now writing to say that provided Chrysler gives Her Majesty's Government the Undertakings set out below, the Government would not object to these proposals and that, accordingly, the necessary consents of the Treasury under the Exchange Control Act 1947 will be forthcoming. These consents will, of course, be subject to compliance with the normal detailed requirements of the Government's exchange control policy which have been explained to your representatives (S. G. Warburg &amp; Co. Ltd.).
The Undertakings referred to above are as follows:

(i) Chrysler will not initiate any action to impair either the home or overseas operations or the management and direction of Rootes as a British company in its relations with the Government, labour, its British shareholders, and the public.
(ii) Chrysler undertakes to maintain a majority of British Directors on the Board of Rootes.
(iii) Chrysler confirms the plans of expansion covering development work at various factories, and especially at Linwood in Scotland, where the major development will take place and where it is planned to increase employment by several thousands; these plans are essential if Rootes is to remain competitive, achieve its proper share of exports and return to reasonable profitability.
(iv) Chrysler plans to achieve a progressive increase in the export of Rootes pro-

ducts without restriction to all practicable markets and to continue to make available its full international organisation for this purpose. They note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the test of the fulfilment of this undertaking would be that the export percentage of the products of the Rootes Group should be at least as high as the average for the British Motor Vehicle Industry as a whole.
(v) Chrysler will nominate a Rootes Director (British) to each of the Boards of Simca S.A. and Chrysler International S.A., and it is understood that a Simca Director (French) will be nominated to the Board of Rootes.
(vi) Chrysler confirms its intention to leave at least 15 per cent. of the entire equity capital (Ordinary, "A" Ordinary and Preferred Ordinary) in the hands of shareholders other than Chrysler, provided that in calculating this 15 per cent. Chrysler may take into account any shares held by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (I.R.C.) or put by I.R.C. to Chrysler (in accordance with Undertaking (vii) below).
(vii) Provided that Chrysler acquires Preferred Ordinary Shares in excess of its rights entitlement of £6,263,686 nominal, it will make available to I.R.C. at par up to £1,512,228 nominal of such excess, i.e., up to 15 per cent. of the total Preferred Ordinary Shares, of £10,081,519, on condition that I.R.C. participate to the same percentage in Chrysler's undertaking to subscribe up to £10,000,000 Unsecured Loan Stock. I.R.C. will have the right on 1st January, 1972, to put these securities to Chrysler at par plus any accrued but unpaid dividend or interest.
(viii) I.R.C. will have the right to nominate one Director on Rootes Board as long as it owns all the securities mentioned in Undertaking (vii) above.


I should be grateful if you would formally confirm that Chrysler gives these Undertakings which, it is understood, between us, may he made public.

Reply dated 16th January, 1967, from Mr. I. J. Minet to the Rt. Hon. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, M.P.
We refer to your letter of 16th January. 1967, in connection with Rootes Motors. Ltd. (Rootes) and confirm our Undertakings as follows:

(i) Chrysler will not initiate any action to impair either the home or overseas operations or the management and direction of Rootes as a British Company in its relations with the Government, labour, its British shareholders, and the public.
(ii) Chrysler undertakes to maintain a majority of British Directors on the Board of Rootes.
(iii) Chrysler confirms the plans of expansion covering development work at various factories and especially at Linwood in Scotland where the major development will take place and where it is planned to increase employment by several thousands; these plans are essential if Rootes is to remain


competitive, achieve its proper share of exports and return to reasonable profitability.
(iv) Chrysler plans to achieve a progressive increase in the export of Rootes products without restriction to all practicable markets and to continue to make available its full international organisation for this purpose. They note that, in the view of Her Majesty's Government, the test of the fulfilment of this undertaking would be that the export percentage of the products of the Rootes Group should be at least as high as the average for the British Motor Vehicle Industry as a whole.
(v) Chrysler will nominate a Rootes Director (British) to each of the Boards of Simca S.A. and Chrysler International S.A.: and it is understood that a Simca Director (French) will be nominated to the Board of Rootes.
(vi) Chrysler confirms its intention to leave at least 15 per cent. of the entire equity capital (Ordinary, "A" Ordinary and Preferred Ordinary) in the hands of shareholders other than Chrysler, provided that in calculating this 15 per cent. Chrysler may take into account any shares held by the Industrial Reorganisation Corporation (I.R.C.) or put by I.R.C. to Chrysler (in accordance with Undertaking (vii) below).
(vii) Provided that Chrysler acquires Preferred Ordinary Shares in excess of its rights entitlement of £6,263,686 nominal, it will make available to I.R.C. at par up to £1,512,228 nominal of such excess, i.e., up to 15 per cent. of the total Preferred Ordinary Shares, of £10,081,519 on condition that I.R.C. participate to the same percentage in Chrysler's undertaking to subscribe up to £10,000,000 Unsecured Loan Stock. I.R.C. will have the right on 1st January, 1972, to put these securities to Chrysler at par plus any accrued but unpaid dividend or interest.
(viii) I.R.C. will have the right to nominate one Director on Rootes Board as long as its owns all the securities mentioned in Undertaking (vii) above.


We agree that these Undertakings may be made public.

NORTH VIETNAM (UNITED STATES BOMBING)

Mr. Winnick: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker. I am in some dilemma about Questions placed on the Order Paper and directed to the Prime Minister. Whether a Question is answered depends upon the Minister and not upon you, Sir, but could you give any guidance as to how I can raise the question of the continued American bombing attacks and the new American bombing attacks on Hanoi and other cities and towns in North Vietnam?

Sir G. Nabarro: In Trafalgar Square.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member's Question was too late on the Order Paper to be reached. I cannot solve that problem for him. I have had no request from a Minister that he wished to answer Question No. Q11.

Mr. Winnick: Further to that point of order. I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the urgent need for the British Government to make representations to the United States over the new American bombing attacks on Hanoi and other places in Vietnam.
You will know, Mr. Speaker, that I wished to raise this matter before the Recess, but without any success. Since then there has been first-hand confirmation by a correspondent in the New York Times that these bombing attacks are taking place and that civilians in Hanoi are definitely among the casualties. No longer is there any denial that these attacks are causing great civilian casualties in Hanoi and other cities and towns in Vietnam.
I am raising this matter, and I make no apology for doing so, out of a sense of frustration, because I simply do not understand how I can get the matter raised on the Floor of the House. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I am sure that many people in the country are deeply concerned about this issue. I will not be intimidated by Tory jeers. Many people fail to understand why it is impossible for us to debate this subject in the British House of Commons. It is for this reason—not to delay the House and not to keep repeating what I have said before, but simply out of a desire to make sure that this very important matter is debated on the Floor of the House—that I feel justified in raising it in this way this afternoon.
I know that there has been a new recommendation, which the House has yet to debate, as to how we can raise urgent matters, and it is not my desire to anticipate the discussion and recommendation of the House on that subject. But I believe that we should be in a position today or tomorrow to discuss the new and continued bombing attacks by the United States on Hanoi and other cities and towns in North Vietnam. If it is true that the atrocities which are reported have been committed by the Vietcong,


needless to say I am certainly opposed to that sort of atrocity. I am opposed to the horrors on both sides in Vietnam. I want to see an end to the war. I believe that the British Government should be able to make representations to the United States, and, therefore, I am asking that we should be able to discuss this matter.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick) seeks leave to move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9 for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely,
the urgent need for the British Government to make representations to the United States over the new American bombing attacks on Hanoi and other places in Vietnam.
May I say to him at the outset that everyone in the House shares his concern about the gravity of the situation in Vietnam, and that Mr. Speaker is no different from any other hon. Member in being anxious about what is happening in Vietnam. May I say, too, that the hon. Member need not seek the assurance of the Chair that when an hon. Member raises a matter which he feels should take precedence over the business of the day no one questions his sincerity or his right to do so. This is one of the privileges and rights of a Member of Parliament.
I sympathise with the hon. Member's desire to debate a question on which he feels strongly. Vietnam is a question which the House, when it so decides from time to time, can debate. The Report of the Select Committee on Procedure, which was published yesterday, drew attention to the difficulty of obtaining time for debates under the present Standing Order No. 9, which it is my duty to administer. However strongly Members may feel on this subject of Vietnam or others, the rule which I still have to observe till the House instructs me otherwise is that under Standing Order No. 9 such Motions are

out of order where the responsibility of the Government is not directly and immediately involved or where a foreign Government have a more direct responsibility.
Quite apart from my own decision on 29th June last, as recorded in HANSARD in column 1815 and earlier last year, the House will recall that as long ago as June, 1965, an hon. Member sought to raise the subject of Vietnam because of the alleged failure of the Government of the day
to take immediate action, through the United Nations, to stop the new acts of war … in … Vietnam in pursuance of the newly-announced decisions of the Government of the United States of America."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 15th June, 1965; Vol. 714, c. 249–50.]
On that occasion my predecessor reminded the House that he was bound by precedent to disallow the application for leave to move the Adjournment. I must now give the same decision. I cannot accept the Motion.

TRAWLER "ST. FINBARR" (LOSS)

Mr. James Johnson: On a point of order. May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter affecting my constituents? I have a Question, No. 58, to the President of the Board of Trade about the tragic loss of the fishing vessel, "St. Finbarr", sailing out of Hull; the loss of the vessel with also the loss of 12 lives off the coast of Labrador.
Is it not the custom of this House that the Minister responsible for safety at sea should come to the House at the end of Question time and make a statement about such a disaster?

Mr. Speaker: I have sympathy with the hon. Member in the question he is raising, but it is not a matter for me. The Minister has not informed me that he wishes to answer that Question now.

Orders of the Day — AGRICULTURE BILL

As amended (in the Standing Committee) considered.

New Clause No. 1.—(POWER TO VARY RATES, AND EXTEND SCOPE, OF GRANTS FOR AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT.)

(1) Orders may from time to time be made under this section—

(a) varying, either generally or as respects expenditure or, as the case may be, basic grants of a description therein specified, the rate at which grant is payable under section 31, section 32 or section 33 of this Act;
(b) providing for the making of grants under the said section 32, at such rate as may be so specified, in respect of expenditure incurred on or after a date not earlier than 17th January 1966 in the provision of any description of self-propelled machines other than tractors and harvesters;
(c) providing for the making of supplementary grants under the said section 33, at such rate as may be so specified, in respect of grants under any enactment other than ore specified in subsection (4) of that section, being grants for the payment of which, or of the first instalment of which, application was first made on or after a date not earlier than 17th January 1966.

(2) An order under this section—

(a) may be made for England and Wales. for Scotland. for Northern Ireland, or for any two or all of those parts of the United Kingdom jointly,
(b) shall be made with the consent of the Treasury, and by the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State jointly if it is made for Great Britain or the United Kingdom, and the appropriate Minister in any other case,
(c) may contain such incidental and supplemental provisions as appear appropriate to the Minister of Agriculture. Fisheries and Food and the Secretary of State or, as the case may be, to the appropriate Minister,
(d) may be varied or revoked by a subsequent order,
(e) shall be made by statutory instrument.

(3) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (1)(a) above, or an order under subsection (1)(b) or (1)(c) above providing for the payment of grants at a rate other than that specified in section 32(2) or, as the case may be, 33(1) of this Act, shall be laid before the House of Commons after being made, and the order shall cease to have effect at the end of twenty-eight days after that on which it is made (but without prejudice to anything previously done under the order or to the making of a new order) unless before the end of that period the order is approved by resolution of that House.

In reckoning any period of twenty-eight days for the purposes of this subsection, no account shall be taken of any time during which Parliament is dissolved or prorogued or during which the House of Commons is adjourned for more than four days.

(4) A statutory instrument containing any other order under subsection (1) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of the House of Commons.—[Mr. Pear.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

4.12 p.m.

The Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Fred Peart): I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.
The House will recall that my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade announced on 1st December last increased rates of industrial investment grants for expenditure incurred between 1st January, 1967, and 31st December, 1968, and indicated that my right hon. Friend and I would make corresponding arrangements for agriculture after consultation with the industry. We need power to vary the rates of grant already written into the Bill, and this the new Clause provides. It is a continuing power, but I must point out that it is not the intention that these agricultural grants should be altered automatically wherever there is an increase in industrial investment grants. The needs of agriculture will, of course, be considered on their own merits.
Following consultations we have had with representatives of the industry the Government propose to provide for the following increases in the rate of grant to apply to expenditure between 1st January, 1967, and 31st December, 1968: first, the grant under Clause 31 on fixed equipment, plant and machinery, and land improvement will be increased from 10 per cent. to 12½ per cent.; and, secondly, grant under Clause 32 for tractors and harvesters will be increased from 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. In the case of expenditure on hire-purchase agreements, the higher rates of grant wil apply where the first payment is made during this period. It is hoped that these arrangements will give additional stimulus where it is most required.
This new Clause also enables the Ministers to make orders extending grants under Clause 32 to any type of self-propelled machine other than a tractor


or harvester, and to extend the supplementary grants under Clause 33 to grants under any enactment other than those specified in that Clause. These provisions replace similar ones in the present Clauses 32 and 33 with the difference that the amendment enables grants to be extended at a rate other than that prescribed in those Clauses. I hope that the Clause will be accepted.

Mr. J. B. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for the information he has given us in relation to this new Clause, which is one which we certainly would not wish to oppose. We know that it is intended to improve the rates of grant. I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a note about this, although I did not receive it very much before we met.
The increased rates will, of course, be helpful in some degree but I must make it clear that I have never looked on this particular method of encouraging investment in agriculture as being as effective as the old investment allowances. This is a point which we made in Committee on the Bill, and I must repeat it, in fairness, to make clear our position.
If, as has been decided, this change is to take place in the system, then, obviously, the higher rates of grant will be some improvement, but there are many farmers who do not understand the way in which this grant will work. It produces some confusion. It is up to the Ministry to see that those affected may be given more clarification, so that the farmers really understand just precisely how they are to benefit in this way, because I believe that a good deal of investment in agriculture has been held up through misunderstanding of this change. I would, therefore, ask him most seriously to see that something more is done to familiarise farmers with how this change will work in practice.
The Minister will recall that when we were considering Clauses 31 to 33 in Committee my hon. Friends and I made on a number of occasions the point that, of course, these grants will operate against the principles which the Minister has enunciated in other parts of the Bill. In other words, they are weighted against the larger, more progressive farms; if anybody does get benefit it is the man who was not being taxed. I am cer-

tainly not against his gaining benefit, but the fact remains that the larger farms, the ones which have been praised many times for their great efficiency, are being penalised by this change in the system, and even under this new rate will not be getting as great incentive to continue investment as they were getting under the old system. I think that there can be little doubt about that, and that the general principle on which this change in taxation in farming takes place, and the change in the investment grant and its application, will definitely have the effect of working against the very principles which the Minister himself has put forward in other parts of the Bill.
Therefore, it is of very limited value to many farmers, but, in so far as the Clause does provide for greater flexibility and does enable the Minister of the day to make additional grants available, we, of course, welcome it, and we hope that it may be invoked regularly to assist all those in agriculture by giving additional incentive to investment generally.
I will not touch on the Amendment which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) has tabled. Dealing with the Clause, we see nothing against making a change of this nature which provides for greater flexibility. However, we ask that very serious consideration be given to ensuring that the farming community generally knows how it can be helped in relation to these grants. I express the urgent hope that whether it be in regard to fixed equipment or harvesters and tractors there should be a clearer understanding given to the farming community.
There is also the fact which we discussed in Committee, in relation to the grants generally, that the grants being given in the way that they are would appear to delay the payment to the farmer. The two instalments in relation to tractors, for example, mean a two-year period of payment. That is unfortunate. It arises under the original Clauses, but it is affected by the new Clause.
In principle, we welcome the Clause because of the opportunity which it gives for increasing grants, but we reiterate our doubts about the system of grants, which we believe is not as effective as the system which we left and which the Government inherited.

Mr. Speaker: I ought to inform the House that I have not selected the Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) for formal discussion, but he may discuss it on this Clause.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am grateful to you for that information, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I may refer to my Amendment in my general criticism of the new Clause, which I view with mixed feelings, because it does not go far enough. If we accept it, I hope that it may still be improved by my suggestion. It is giving power to vary rates and amend what I think is a poor system, and I wonder how far the Clause will enable the Minister to remove some of the defects.
I want to refer particularly to the Clause dealing with machinery. This system seems to me to bring in further economic distortions allegedly to encourage investment in particular lines which the gentlemen in Whitehall think best for differently taxed farmers. It seems to me to be undesirable to have an investment bias at all in favour of the tractor or the self-propelled machine as against other kinds of equally costly machines which are not self-propelled, such as balers and potato or sugar beet harvesters.
Why bring in an economic distortion that may cloud the correct judgment, which should be whether or not the purchase of new machinery enables the investment to justify itself by greater and cheaper production? Surely that should be the only economic criterion. In deciding whether to put capital into machinery or some other agricultural purpose, the farmer ought to be concerned much more with overall efficiency and the degree of cheapness, and not be sidetracked by these tax considerations, although I agree that they have obtained in agriculture for a long time.
The Government make a great mistake in thinking that it is undesirable that the bigger farmers should get large tax incentives to change their machinery. 'In that connection, I ought at once to declare an interest. If one goes further into the economics of agriculture, that policy could only be justified by the fact that agriculture requires an enormous amount of capital and that the return on capital in agriculture is substantially

less than in most other forms of commercial and industrial activity. If farmers are to keep up the rate of replacement of machinery, they need generous tax allowances.
That is my fundamental criticism. It is a very bad system as a whole and one which a modern, purposeful Labour Government, in undertaking a review of procedures, might have replaced by a sensible, clear and comprehensive system. I would reinforce the criticism of my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) in that the Clause multiplies unproductive work not only by civil servants—that is only the Government's concern, and it may be that they can replace civil servants by computers—but by farmers indoors, unrelated to husbandry decisions. If a farmer wastes time worrying about his tax position, and if that becomes a major consideration, production outside suffers and all his proper husbandry considerations suffer, because his time has been taken up.
I would reinforce my right hon. Friend's question. Does the Minister think that the average farmer understands the system, or will he not again have practically to live with his accountant to decide what it may pay him to do? I am horrified at the unnecessary complexity which is being created. In the matter of his tax returns and his investment programme, no longer is the farmer dealing purely with the Inland Revenue. He now has to open accounts with Ministries on machinery, involving a great deal of work and time.
Last week, I tried to work through these new proposals with a constituent of mine who is a farmer and a good accountant. We wanted to see what could happen. We took the Minister's new proposal to increase the grant from 10 to 15 per cent., and we sought to apply it to two items of machinery in common use. First, we took a tractor costing £1,000. Secondly, we took another piece of equipment, such as a potato harvester or a sugar beet harvester, not self-propelled, but also costing £1,000. We assumed that the machines would be hard used for two years, and then sold at half price for £500 each. I do not think that that is an unlikely situation. It is reasonably typical of intensive agricultural activity.
Our consideration resulted in pages of calculations, which the Minister can have privately if he wishes to see them. Sum-marising them, we considered the effect on a company paying Corporation Tax at 40 per cent., which has the advantage of being a fixed rate and is somewhat easier. Under the old system, with an investment allowance of 10 per cent., an initial allowance of 10 per cent., and two years' wear and tear each at 25 per cent., the total saving in Corporation Tax to the company on the tractor was £320. Under the new system, at the revised rate of 15 per cent. which the Minister has just announced, the Corporation Tax saved on that tractor would be £140, and the company would get £150 grant.
It means that in the case of a tractor, the new system is better than the old for a company, resulting in a tax saving of £290 as against—[HON. MEMBERS: "It is worse."] I think that the new system is better because the farmer gets the grant and does not pay so much tax. If my hon. Friends think that he is worse off—and the Government do—it is strengthening my case, but I do not think that it needs strengthening.
4.30 p.m.
If we turn from savings to roundabouts, the potato harvester, under the old system, which created machinery alike whatever category it was in, the tax saving to the company is £320. Under the new system, mainly because there is to be no investment allowance and no grant, the saving to the company will be only £200. Thus the company will be worse off by £120, and this is after the new higher rate grant of 15 per cent.
We left the company and tried to apply this consideration to a not untypical farming case, that of a farmer who is married, with two children, and with an assessible profit for tax purposes of £1,750, that is after wear and tear and other allowances on his old machinery, but before any allowance or grant on the new £1,000 tractor or harvester which he might have purchased.
How much Income Tax would such a farmer have to pay in the year at present rates? Under the old system, if he bought the tractor, his Income Tax liability for the year would be £65. Under the new system his tax liability will be £205, but the tax position will be reduced by the grant of £150, so that his total tax pay-

ment under the new system will be £55. Thus, on the purchase of a tractor he will be £10 better off. He will pay £10 less tax, but against that cash saving he will have to license the tractor. I shall not repeat all the arguments, but he will have to insure the tractor for road risks, and he will be involved in correspondence, in paying accountants' fees, and so on.
In the other example, if he purchases a potato harvester which is not self-propelled the situation will move very sharply against him. The Income Tax payable by him under the old system will remain the same at £65, but under the new system he will have to pay £148, so he will be £83 worse off under the new system in respect of plant which does not have a grant.
It seems to me that this simply has not been worked through, or thought through yet. I say that because even before the system has reached the Statute Book the Government have had to change the rate for grant. What will happen, therefore, is that the most successful farmer will not get enough help to make any substantial difference to him, and the unsuccessful farmer will also be very little better off.
The Clause as it stands will not help the production of machinery as a whole, because it will enable the Government to do only one thing, namely, to increase the rates. It is, of course, important that these rates should be capable of being increased, otherwise I do not think that the agricultural machinery industry will maintain its present prosperity. There has been a sharp turn-down in machinery purchased during the fourth quarter of 1966, and the secondhand market, where I think the smaller farmer ought to find most of his machinery because he very often does not need the latest, more expensive models, will also tend to be short of supplies if the larger farmers cease to replace their machinery as often as they might.
That has a bearing on the export trade, because, in addition to needing a buoyant home market in new machinery to provide an export trade in such machinery, we have a fairly large export trade in used farm machinery to Europe, and particularly E.F.T.A., to the Middle East, and, indeed, in one-year-old tractors, to America itself. These export trades will dry up if farmers do not renew their


machinery as freely as they have been doing.
I think that the small farmer will usually be ill-advised to buy new machinery unless the grant is much greater than it is at the moment. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will take the powers set out in my Amendment to enable him, if need be, to grant aid for used or secondhand machinery in the limited class of small farmers, those whose farms are, or have been, in the Small Farmer Scheme.
I take that as the only easily available definition for the scope which I have in mind, but it may be that the Minister would like power to make grants on secondhand machinery in general. The only reason why the Minister would not need this power would be if he decided to increase the rate of grant on new machinery generally so as to maintain a good flow of used machinery. Because I have no confidence in the Government's determination to do that in future, I would invest them with the power referred to in my Amendment. I support the Clause, but I wish that it were a great deal stronger.

Mr. R. H. Turton: I rise only on a point of inquiry. The new Clause seems to be a step forward. The Minister announced new rates of grant with regard to Clauses 31 and 32, but, although he has taken power to vary grant under Clause 33, he has made no announcement of variation of grant. This seems unfortunate, because, whereas farmers under Clauses 31 and 32 are frequently arable farmers making claims for fixed plant, the people who are suffering most at present are the livestock farmers, and I think that this was an opportunity for the Minister to repair some of the damage which has been done to the livestock industry during recent months.
We want to get more improvements on these farms, because the profit on producing livestock is decreasing all the time, and I should have thought that a variation of the supplementary grant of 5 per cent. would have helped those farmers very considerably, and induced them to carry out improvements.
Equally, Clause 33 affects the horticulture industry, and it seems to me a pity when industry generally, and the arable

farmer in particular, are getting these extra inducements to make investments during this calendar year, that some farmers, some horticulturists, and some growers, should be excluded. I ask the Minister to consider this again before he finally makes his decision. After all, he is taking power to vary the rates under Clause 33. He has made a preliminary announcement on the first two Clauses. There is nothing to stop him from changing his mind and adding to the beneficiaries those who are making schemes covered by Clause 33.
I wish to make a plea for clarity. If we pass the Bill, tonight or later this week, in one Clause we shall have an announcement that the rate of grant for a certain item will be a certain amount—Clause 31 will provide that it shall be 10 per cent.—but in a later Clause—and we do not know which number it will be in the final form of the Bill—we shall find that the rate of grant for a particular period in respect of Clause 31 is 12½per cent.
It is highly inconvenient to farmers to have to chase through Acts to find certain rates of grant. I should have thought that in the unusual circumstances in which the Bill has been born, and its very long pregnancy—longer than any recent Bill—the opportunity should be taken when it goes to the other place to redraft this series of Clauses so that they are clear to the farmer and he can see that for a certain improvement he will have a certain rate of grant if the improvement is carried out in this calendar year and a lower grant, of 10 per cent., if it is carried out at another time.
All that I ask is that the Bill should be made clear to farmers. It will not be clear if we merely insert this provision in the Bill. Although I realise the reasons which have led the Minister to take this decision, this matter should be reviewed, and the Bill made clear for all to understand.

Mr. J. L. M. Prior: I congratulate the Minister and his two Parliamentary Secretaries on maintaining their jobs. When we look round the benches opposite, however, it is not difficult to see why. There is more space and green grass behind the Ministers than they will ever manage to grow if they remain in their present occupations.
The Minister has made an extremely grave statement. For months he has been saying that there is nothing wrong with agriculture, and that there is plenty of confidence in the industry. This afternoon he told us that he is increasing investment grants. He knows, and the country knows, that at the moment the industry is passing through a very difficult period, in which confidence in the future of the industry has never been lower or more lacking.
My right hon. Friend has welcomed the increased grants, but I wonder whether the increases go anything like far enough. If the Minister knows the figures, as he must, he will know what sales of agricultural machinery have taken place in the last quarter of 1966. He will know that for the first time since the war—I believe—Massey-Ferguson has been on short time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Not for the first time.

Mr. Prior: Yes, for the first time.

Mr. Ross: That firm is in my constituency in Kilmarnock, and the hon. Gentleman can take it from me that it is not the first time.

Mr. Prior: I will withdraw what I have said so far as Kilmarnock goes, but not so far as Coventry goes.
The Minister knows that all the tractor output of Massey-Ferguson is concentrated in Coventry. A few combines may be produced in Kilmarnock, but this is the first time since the war that there has been short-time working in the tractor section. This is a very serious situation for the industry.
If the Minister is so confident about the future of the industry why has he had to increase these grants? How does he think that this will help the industry to overcome its problems? A big factor which is preventing the sale of farm machinery, and which is stopping farmers from investing in new machinery, is the shortage of cash and the credit restrictions placed on the industry by the banks, which are as strict today as they were six months ago. It is not that the banks do not have the money to lend; some banks no longer have the confidence in lending the industry money that they had a little

while ago. They see that some farmers are in grave trouble, and they are not willing to lend money and have it poured down the drain.
4.45 p.m.
The industry has seen its ups and downs before; we have seen pig farmers and barley producers hit, but never in my experience have we seen every agricultural product in the state it is today. Arable farmers are more discontented now than they have been for many years. Pig, cow and sheep farmers are all in trouble. The Minister sits there smiling. He knows that what I am saying is true. What will he do in the Price Review to put the situation right? He has told us this afternoon that by raising these grants he will help the industry, but farmers will still be worse off than they were with the old investment grants. To say that he will solve the problems of the industry is to talk a lot of nonsense.
I recommend the Minister to study the good speech made by Mr. De Boinville, at the British Oil and Cake Mills lunch just before Christmas. He made two very important points which are of vital consequence to the industry. First, he said that there was no proper medium-term finance for agriculture. That is what is required. Before he became Minister the right hon. Gentleman used to talk a lot about credit for agriculture. What has he done about it? He has done nothing to help with medium-term credit.
The second point made by Mr. De Boinville was that the return on capital invested was far too low in the industry. Today, however, we find that these investment grants are being introduced at a lower rate than the original grants, when we had them for Income Tax purposes. We cannot have any confidence in what the Minister is doing for agriculture at the moment. He came to office with a great flourish. He was going to push agriculture forward, but what is happening? Wherever we look British agriculture is suffering. If the Minister had said that he was increasing the investment grants from 10 per cent., not to 15 per cent., but to 25 per cent. he might have obtained the effect that he wants; otherwise he will not.
I must now declare an interest. I bought a tractor last week—not because I thought that the Minister would increase the grant by 5 per cent. but because it


was absolutely essential to my business. I certainly would not have bought it for any other reason, because at the moment there is no incentive for anyone in agriculture to invest additional capital. The industry is being squeezed by the banks and by the Minister. Its confidence in the Government has been sapped. That is not surprising, because it knows that the Government have no interest in British agriculture, and that the Chancellor still considers that everyone in agriculture can afford to go to Ascot for so many days a week.
These factors are beginning to tell. I warn the Minister that what he has done today is not good enough for the future and that unless the Price Review really restores confidence in the industry and gives it a great deal more help than has been offered this afternoon the Minister will be in very serious trouble by the spring.

Mr. Anthony Stodart: I would like to echo the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior). These investment grants—increased though they have been by the new Clause—in the place of investment allowances, will show nothing extra at all in cash for the industry as a whole. It is, of course, a policy of deliberate redistribution, in that what one would probably assume to be the bigger tax paying farmer will get less and the smaller farmer, who one presumes would normally pay less tax, will get more. There might be some virtue about this. One of the possible virtues would arise if it were effective.
I have four main objections to this. First, the bigger farmer, who will suffer—

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. James Hoy): To what does the hon. Member object?

Mr. Stodart: I attach my objections to the increase as well as the principle.
The bigger farmer can undoubtedly make better use of machinery and he ought to be encouraged to mechanise.
Secondly, the smaller farmer has tended to buy good second-hand tractors, two, or possibly three, years old. This is an important point and was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft.

There is a firm and absolutely regular market for these, because it has been the habit of many who buy from the new market to run for two years or possibly three and systematically change over.
Thirdly, I believe that the grant is too small even with the increase to be much good in helping a non-taxpaying farmer to find the capital to buy new tractors. After all, a tractor which costs £1,000 new will bring grant of only £50 a year over three years. That is the increased grant. Admittedly, it is better than £33 6s. 8d., but can the right hon. Gentleman seriously say that there is any inducement in that to make the small man go into the new markets? His position vis-a-vis secondhand purchase is worsened.
Fourthly, from the larger farmers are being withdrawn allowances not only on tractors and combines but on a whole range of moveable machines, such as muck-spreaders, potato harvesters and silage and hay-making tackle. My right hon. Friend the Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) was absolutely right in what he said about Clause 33 in this context. It is here, in the livestock sector, that stimulants are particularly needed. Far from this being a sort of side-stepping operation, the right hon. Gentleman and the Government have taken a definitely backward step by substituting grants for allowances.
It will do absolutely no good to the users of machinery and, as both my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and Lowestoft have said, it may well disturb the solid foundations on which our agricultural machinery industry—the largest exporter of agricultural machinery in the world—is based. Already, as I have no doubt the Minister has noticed, during the first nine months of 1966, overall sales were down by 12½ per cent. That is something which neither he nor his right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade can view with equanimity.
The success of the export trade of the agricultural machinery industry in the past is a classic example—the best we have—of the importance of an export industry having a really good home market. If that is damaged, a great deal of trouble may follow.
It is for this variety of reasons, although there is an improvement in the increase


in the grant which the Minister announced, that we view with considerable misgiving his whole policy of substituting grants for allowances.

Mr. Godber: Will the Minister not reply?

Mr. Peart: I intended to do so. I would not wish to prevent any hon. Member who wanted to speak from doing so.
I understand the main argument of principle here, which has been argued before. I remind hon. Members who have been critical of the new Clause that whatever arguments there may be about investment grants being the right method, I have brought in a Clause, in view of what I said in a previous statement, because I wished to increase the rate of the grant. I am glad that the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) welcomed the Clause.
I would say to the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), that although it is not for me to comment on whether an hon. Member is in order or not, I believe that it would be very wrong—

Hon. Members: Order.

Mr. Peart: That is quite true, is it not? I am merely saying that the hon. Member knows very well that many of his criticisms were very far from arguments about this Clause. If he feels so strongly, why does he not seek to divide the House against the Clause? Why does he not dissent strongly from the speech of his own Front Bench spokesman, who, I thought, constructively and warmly welcomed the Clause?
After all, the Clause seeks to increase the value of the grants by a sum, depending on the response of farmers, which may well be over £2½ million or £3 million. This is not an inconsiderable amount. I should have thought that the hon. Member for Lowestoft in particular would have welcomed this. To go on gloom-mongering as he did does no service to himself or to the industry.
I have consulted the industry on this Clause. We consulted the National Farmers' Union as to how best we could use the available money. In the circumstances. I felt it right to concentrate on the items which I have mentioned. I hope, therefore, that the decision that it was right to concentrate particularly on

the higher rate of tractors and harvesters would be welcomed by the industry.
The right hon. Member for Thirsk and Malton (Mr. Turton) raised the argument for extending the grant into other areas. He made what was, from his point of view, a powerful argument about the dairy industry, that we should concentrate on that, as against the arable farmer. I took note of these points, but in view of my discussions with the industry, I thought it better to concentrate on the. sections which I have mentioned. That is not to say that I believe that the other section of the industry is not important, but if we had extended the amount of money over a wider range of activities, it would not have had the effect which I believe is necessary.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), whose Amendment was not called, wished its principle to be accepted by the Minister in administration. The hon. Gentleman's argument was that it should be possible to make orders to provide for the payment of grants for used or secondhand machinery on holdings on which the Small Farmer's Scheme—presumably the current Small Farmer Business Management Scheme—is or has been in operation.
5.0 p.m.
As I have said, the grants are intended to replace investment allowances, which were not payable on second-hand machinery. Therefore, it would not be appropriate to extend these grants to second-hand machinery. To do so would entail giving the grant twice, or even several times, on the same piece of machinery. However, as the hon. Gentleman knows, no strings are attached to the use of grants paid under the current Small Farmer Business Management Scheme and there is no reason why farmers should not use such grants for the purchase of second-hand machinery. For that reason it would be wrong to accept this argument.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: The right hon. Gentleman said that the grants were intended to replace investment allowances, and he specified tractors. I have been rechecking my figures and I find that what the right hon. Gentleman says strengthens both my arguments. Even with the purchase of a new tractor, the new scheme with the new rates is less


favourable to a company than the old system was. We are worse off on all counts. That strengthens my argument for something to be done about second-hand machinery.

Mr. Peart: I will give the argument about second-hand machinery. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has contested the validity of my argument. We could not include second-hand tractors for the reason I have given.
The right hon. Member for Grantham mentioned the complexity of administration and the need to inform farmers about grants and other matters. I will certainly look into this. We are always anxious to inform farmers and there will be an explanatory leaflet and publicity about the new scheme. I am anxious that no arrangement should be complex. We think that this increase will be welcomed by farmers and I hope that hon. Members will now accept the new Clause.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time and added to the Bill.

New Clause No. 2.—(RECOVERY OF
POSSESSION OF FORMER FARMHOUSES.)

(1) The following provisions shall apply where a farmhouse has been relinquished under an amalgamation pursuant to a scheme made under section 26 of this Act and has been let on a regulated tenancy.

(2) If—

(a) not later than the commencement of the tenancy the tenant has been given notice in writing that possession may be recovered under this section, and
(b) apart from the Rent Acts the landlord would be entitled to recover possession of the farmhouse, and
(c) the court is satisfied that the farmhouse is required for occupation by a person primarily engaged in agriculture or employed or to be employed by the landlord in agriculture;

the court shall make an Order for the possession of the farmhouse, whether or not it would have power to do so under section 3 of the Rent and Mortgage Interest Restrictions (Amendment) Act 1933, and in relation to that Order section 5(2) of the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920 shall not apply.

(3) In this section 'employed' and 'agriculture' have the same meaning as in the Agricultural Wages Act 1948, or, in Scotland the Agricultural Wages (Scotland) Act 1949, 'the Rent Acts' means the Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Acts 1920 to 1939, or any of those Acts, 'farmhouse' means the

principal residence situated on agricultural land of a person primarily engaged in, carrying on or directing agricultural operations on that land and which has not at any time been occupied by a person under the terms of his employment as a person employed in agriculture, 'landlord' 'tenant' and 'tenancy' have the same meanings as in the Increase of Rent and Mortgage Interest (Restrictions) Act 1920.—[Mr. Godber.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Notice taken that 40 Members were not present;

House counted, and 40 Members being present—

Mr. Godber: We are much encouraged by the reinforcement of the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Sydney Silverman) who has just come into the Chamber and who takes such an active part in our debates on agriculture. We hope that he will stay with us for many hours and we are very grateful to him for making up a quorum. However, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) was quite right to draw attention to the lack of interest among Government supporters in this important Bill—at least, Ministers tell us that it is important.
The new Clause refers to the position which arises under Clause 26. The Minister has set about his task of making changes in farming structure and has himself accepted that doing so poses certain problems with farmhouses among other matters. There are many substantially built houses about the country and some of them will no longer be required as farmhouses. The new Clause is concerned with those farmhouses which are not required for the time being and which, if let, might not be able later to be pulled back into use as a farm dwelling of some kind. The Clause takes account of the changed circumstances which have arisen since the passing of the Rent Act 1965, which would provide that if a farmhouse were let on a regulated tenancy, it would probably be impossible for the farmer concerned to be able to draw it back into circulation for an agricultural tenancy, at least, not for a very long time. In such circumstances he might as well sell the house.
The Minister will recognise the substance of the need for some arrangement


of this kind. A probable alternative is for the house to be left vacant, when it might deteriorate. The Minister would certainly not wish that, and it would certainly be a shocking waste at a time when there is still a substantial housing shortage and when the Government's policy seems to be increasing that shortage throughout the country. I should have thought that the Minister would wish to see the fullest use made of such farmhouses.
If the farmhouse is not let or left vacant, it will be sold, and that could damage the possible agricultural use of the land later. If the house were taken by someone entirely outside agriculture, that might have an effect on the way in which further amalgamations developed. Surely it is right that those concerned should have the opportunity to regain possession of the house, after having let it, if it is later required for agricultural purposes. I should have thought that both sides of the House would recognise the justice of this argument and I hope that the Minister will accept the new Clause, which applies a good deal of basic commonsense to the policy which the Minister himself has advocated.
The Clause cannot be said to cut across what the Minister is seeking to achieve If he considers the Rent Act, 1965, he will see that his own Government created the problem with these houses. It is, therefore, up to them to find some means of dealing with it in a way which will be agriculturally sensible as well as making full use of the house during a period of national need.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman can accept the new Clause as it stands, although if the wording has to be amended that could be done in another place. The point will be fully met if he accepts the principle, but says that the wording must be altered. However, if he does not accept the principle, we shall want the fullest agricultural reasons and the reasons from the point of view of the community as a whole. This point has not been met in Committee or anywhere else and it seems to us that an important need must be met. The Clause is self-explanatory and I do not propose to labour it further.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I want to reinforce what my right hon.

Friend has said. This is really a straight question of commonsense and no prejudice should arise at all. The object of the Bill is to encourage the amalgamation of uneconomic holdings. If it is successful to that extent, then inevitably there are bound to be farmhouses forming part of the holding before amalgamation which will be, pro tem, surplus. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman exactly what happens.
Farm A and Farm B are amalgamated into an economic unit. The farmhouse of Farm B is temporarily unwanted. What is the farmer of the new amalgamated holding to do? As my right hon. Friend has said, at the moment if he lets it he is liable to lose control altogether. If he sells it, then there can be some difficulty about disposing of it as part of the holding, and perhaps Capital Gains Tax arises, and so on. It also means that he has parted with the farmhouse for keeps. What often happens is that he has a son and, in a few years' time, if the son is married, and helps the father to run the farm, he would like to let the son live in the second farmhouse.
Under those circumstances, unless the right hon. Gentleman accepts the new Clause, a farmer cannot get possession of the second farmhouse. This places him in a very difficult dilemma. So far, almost everything that the Government have done has been to encourage people not to let but to sell or to pull down. This is a nonsense in terms of agriculture and housing accommodation, of which we are very short. It also makes a nonsense of this Bill in respect of very many holdings which ought to be amalgamated. Would it not be a good thing if, at the eleventh hour, the right hon. Gentleman saw some common sense and accepted our Clause?

Mr. Michael Jopling: This Clause could be enormously important if in future, in any section of the agriculture industry where these amalgamations have taken place, there were to be a great change of circumstances. This makes it very important, at this stage when one can envisage changes, to maintain a pool of agricultural housing in all areas. It is vitally important that this pool should not be broken up so that it could never be restored to agriculture again.
Changes can happen in a variety of ways. It might be in order to point out some of the ways in which changes will occur, making this housing pool necessary. We have all seen the most fundamental and rapid technological changes in this industry. No one quite knows where they are taking us but it may be that concentrated agricultural production may develop in certain areas, making this pool urgently important. Ever-increasing urban sprawl and developments of all sorts make it very important that the pool be available in all areas.
The most likely change which could occur and which might completely change the whole structure of agriculture is the possibility of Britain entering the European Economic Community. If this were to happen there is no doubt that we should all have to face great and important changes. There is no doubt that certain forms of agricultural production would be greatly expanded and others greatly contracted. In such a case agriculture would expand in certain parts of the country with a great increase in the number of people engaged in the industry. There will be a migration of people engaged in agriculture to certain parts of the country and consequently an exodus from others.
It is the migration to certain parts about which we ought to be thinking and we ought to be keeping this pool of houses available for the challenges which will certainly meet us when this country, as I hope, enters Europe. I do not know whether the Minister has the same hopes. If not, this might explain some of his reticence, but I hope that he will accept this Clause on that score alone.

5.15 p.m.

Mr. Paul Hawkins: As a land agent I meet cases of this kind frequently. One often finds that, even without the stimulus of these amalgamation schemes, two farms are being farmed by one man. If the farmer lets one of the farmhouses he has the greatest difficulty in ever regaining possession. One finds that at a certain stage of a man's life, when his children are very young, he is employing men, but when his son has grown up and is able to work do work and partially to take over. In and is married, then he brings him in to

many cases such a farmer adds a new side, a new intensive unit, to the holding, requiring extra labour, because the livings of two persons must be earned out of the same acreage.
In these cases it is essential that the extra farmhouse should be available for agricultural purposes in future. This is a sensible and straightforward Clause which should be welcomed by both sides of the House, and I sincerely hope that the Minister will accept it.

Mr. Bert Hazell: I oppose this new Clause for one or two obvious reasons. I have listened with interest to the argument put forward in support of it, but I hope that the Minister will not accept it. An undertaking was given when private amalgamations were being discussed in the early stages of this Bill, and the previous Bill of the last Government, that arrangements would be made to enable retiring farmers to remain in possession of the farmhouse when amalgamations took place.
This is covered under Clause 38(3), in which it will be noted that the Minister has power, when discussing questions of amalgamations, to exclude a small portion of land occupied by the house. This was in fulfilment of suggestions, if not undertakings, given by the Minister and others, that the man who was having his land amalgamated under a private arrangement would be able to remain in accommodation.
If this Clause were accepted it would make a nonsense of that undertaking. It is on these grounds that I wish to oppose the Clause. Judging from the circular sent out by the National Farmers' Union during the last few days to some Members of Parliament, it would appear that the Clause has been largely taken from section 16 of the Rent Act. But when that Section was being discussed in this House, we did not oppose it because within it there was protection for the position of the person who had been previously employed by the landlord.
Furthermore, and this is another strong point, Section 16 of the Rent Act did not extend the number of tied houses in circulation. If the Clause were accepted, it would clearly extend the number of tied farmhouses in circulation. One of the problems with which we are always confronted—I speak for workers in the


industry—is that, although we had hoped for much from the Rent Act, the problem of tied cottages is still very prevalent in the industry. We do not want to see it extended by acceptance of this Clause.
The Clause refers to
a person primarily engaged in agriculture".
This means that a landlord would be able to get a farmer out to house someone else who, although primarily engaged in agriculture, was in no way in the employ of his landlord or about to be employed by the landlord. These words seem to be open to blatant abuse. The landlord could have a farmer as a tenant paying a rent which had been agreed, and then subsequently finds someone else —a friend perhaps—who would like to occupy that house who was probably primarily engaged in agriculture but not employed by the landlord and willing to pay a rent in excess of that paid by the person who occupied the farmhouse when the amalgamation took place. Human nature being what it is, the landlord might be prepared to accept the offer of a higher rent and he would be complying strictly with the Bill if the Clause were accepted in seeking possession of that house for
a person primarily engaged in agriculture".
Therefore, we should not like this Clause to be accepted by the Minister. If, however, my right hon. Friend accepts the Clause in principle, will not this mean writing in for retiring farmers a protection clause similar to Section 16 of the Rent Act to ensure that this sort of procedure cannot be used against a person employed by the landlord? If such protection would cover the Minister's position, what about the farmworker who can be equally affected by amalgamation but has no protection offered to him?
Because of our avowed opposition to the tied cottage system, I hope that the Minister will not accept the Clause. I trust that if it is voted on it will be overwhelmingly defeated.

Mr. Timothy Kitson: I think that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) misled the House slightly about the intentions of this side of the House on this new Clause. I am sure that it is the intention of my hon. and right hon. Friends to

ensure that farmhouses which are not wanted for a time are put to the best possible use. I could give several examples of farmhouses standing empty because of the uncertainty about the present situation.
Several examples have been given, and I should like to give another. A farmer may buy a farm with a farmworker living in his own house in the village and therefore for the time being he does not require the farmhouse to put a man into. If the farmworker retires and the farmer has to find a house for a new farmworker, he has no opportunity of getting possession of the farmhouse which goes with the holding. There are many examples of this in my constituency where empty farmhouses could be let on short-term lettings to the Ministry of Defence.
This is a very sensible and sound Clause. A great number of farmers will not risk letting their farmhouses if they feel that at some future date they will not be able to get them back. When a farmer dies, his estate may have to be sold and a farm without a farmhouse would have a very substantially reduced value. The National Farmers' Union pointed out that under the Clause the tenant would be fully acquainted with the position at the beginning of his tenancy and that the farmer would be able to regain possession. No tenant would go into a farm not realising the circumstances when he takes the tenancy of a farmhouse. I hope that the Minister will accept the Clause.

Mr. William Edwards: I wonder whether there is some error in the drafting of the new Clause. I do not know where the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) found the word "relinquished" in the first part of the Clause. I wonder whether the word he has in mind is "vacated". Surely the purpose of the Bill, in so far as we are trying to get reconstruction of farms, is to bring about amalgamations. A tenant of an agricultural holding will not voluntarily give up his holding if he realises that he will lose his security of tenure of his house.
One of the things about which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) was concerned was the undertaking which has been given that


if the tenant of a holding agrees to an amalgamation he will be given the first opportunity to remain in his house. But it is no protection for that tenant if the same law applies to him as can apply to a farmworker in a tied cottage. I should be prepared to agree with all the Opposition's intentions in putting forward this Clause if it were to apply only in the case of a farmhouse which has been vacated and the new landlord is searching for a new tenant.
There is a considerable difference between the situation in my constituency and that in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North. In my constituency, far too many farmhouses are becoming vacant and derelict because farmers do not want to be involved with having a tenant in that house getting the protection of the new Rent Act and being unable to get the farmhouse when it is required.

Mr. Godber: I am most interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. If I did not make the position clear, I should like to clarify it. I accept the intention of the Bill, as it was previously, that an outgoing farmer should have all possible protection. I wish the Clause to apply only if the farmhouse is vacated. If the wording of the Clause is defective, I am willing to give way on it.

Mr. Edwards: I am grateful for that clarification. If the word "vacated" were substituted for "relinquished", there would be great merit in the Clause for my constituency. Far too many farmhouses and farmworkers' cottages become vacant once the farmer has the chance of getting the tenant out. He will not release the house to any person other than a farmworker because if he does he cannot get the house back. If the Minister were prepared to accept the kind of amendment mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, I should certainly support the Clause.

5.30 p.m.

Sir Harry Legge-Bourke: This is the first time that I have made a contribution since the Bill went into Committee many moons ago, but I doubt very much, having listened to the debate so far, whether we shall ever get a perfect solution to the problem with which we are trying to deal. Certainly we shall

never get it so long as we have brought into the argument the sort of points that the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) brought into it. Many of his remarks, if I may say so with respect, are irrelevant. He has perhaps failed to appreciate as fully as he might otherwise have done the definition of the farmhouse as distinct from the farm cottage.
We are not dealing here primarily with houses occupied by farm workers, but we are dealing primarily with the principal farmhouse on a farm which has been amalgamated with another one which already has a farmhouse which will continue to be the principal farmhouse of the new and bigger holding.
I support what the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) said. Some farmers are reluctant to let houses which they do not immediately require, for fear of getting involved in all the complications which flow from what I regard as a highly unsatisfactory Rent Act. The fact remains that if a family is growing up on a farm and the farm becomes part of a larger one, it is quite conceivable that the sons or daughters may find a house on the farm to be of great help in enabling them to continue to play a part in the farm's working without going away and living elsewhere.
There is another problem which arises over and over again in my constituency, and one which, I suspect, arises in the constituencies of other hon. Members. I suppose that the bigger percentage of my mail bag concerns planning permissions in rural areas. Where there has been a village envelope set inside which building can take place but outside which building can take place only for agricultural purposes, there tends to be a growing resentment in the minds of those who live in the villages but who do not work on the land, and there is an antipathy to agriculture. This is doing a great deal of damage to the whole social structure of the rural areas.
If we leave matters as they are in the Bill at the moment, this will become a lot worse rather than better. The Clause goes some way towards preventing it from getting worse. I would claim for it no more than that, because I doubt whether any of us can know how it will work out because we do not know how many amalgamations there will be.
If we simply allow the situation to develop, as it so easily could under the Bill, there will be this further effect. On an amalgamation, the principal farmhouse becomes unnecessary to the working of the new combined farm, and that farmhouse is let to non-agricultural tenants. The farmer then wants it back but is unable to get rid of the tenants, because they are not in agriculture. He will then be faced with the problem of building another house somewhere else on his farm, and there will be further resentment building up among those who want to build their own houses for nonagricultural purposes outside.
If we leave this as it is in the Bill at the moment, it will almost certainly tend to worsen what is already a thoroughly bad thing that is happening. I want to see town and country brought closer together and, even more, the village and the surrounding area brought closer together. I believe that nothing is making deeper inroads on this at the moment than planning permissions for building
If we do not do something about this situation, it will get worse. I would ask the Minister seriously to consider this. I do not know whether the point I have raised has occurred to him. I would like him, if he has not already made up his mind to accept the Clause, to consult his right hon. Friend the Minister for Housing and Local Government to see what he thinks about it, and to see what reports he is getting of the effects of the present planning legislation on village life. This is the real point involved in the Clause. I hope that if the Minister has not already decided to accept the Clause, he will give further thought to it before turning it down.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I support the Clause, but I hope it will go a little wider to cover this point of the temporarily surplus farmhouse.
On Sunday I was visited by a gentleman who rang me up and said that he understood that we had an empty farmhouse. He said that he was trying to get a home for a period of years. He was not destitute. He wanted to live in the district for a number of years and he asked whether he could look at the farmhouse. I said that by all means he could look at it but that as a trustee I

thought we would be very ill-advised to let the farmhouse. The land in question has been farmed, since the farmer's retirement, with other land mainly to get it reshaped and modernised, and, as a trustee, I thought it likely that the farmhouse might be needed at some indefinite time in the future. The probability is that I should have to say to the gentleman that we have decided that the house ought to remain empty, much as we would like to see it occupied by him or by some other tenant.
This is a practical anomaly which has arisen from the 1965 Rent Act. I would beg the Minister to consider the debate at that stage and perhaps to have a word with the then Minister of Housing, now the Lord President of the Council.
I do not want to take up the time of the House unnecessarily, but I would ask the Minister to look at the debate on the Lords Amendments, on 1st November, 1965, and see what the Lord President had to say. He said, incidentally, in answer to the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), that if a farmer wanted to protect a farmhouse and be able to recover possession in future, all he had to do—which is the present position—would be to put an employee in it and create another tied house which he could again get possession of later.
That is the one way in which one can deal with a surplus farmhouse at the moment. The situation is even more anomalous, because, apparently, a surplus farmhouse can be made to qualify, as it were, for regulated tenancy so that one can regain possession, if the provisos are fulfilled, by putting an employee temporarily in a surplus farmhouse.
This is anomalous. I think that the Government, in 1965, were not seized of this problem. The Lord President said in the debate that he had been asked by the N.F.U. to deal only with the case of the surplus farm cottage, which, by definition, has been occupied by someone in agricultural employment, and the Government have really not been approached on this slightly different issue of the farmhouse. I know for a fact that the N.F.U. and the C.L.A. think that this is anomalous. If they had realised it at the time, more representations would probably have been made to the Government. There is a chance now to consider it and put it right.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. John Mackie): The object of the new Clause is to ensure that, when a farmhouse has been given up in connection with an approved amalgamation and then let on the understanding that it can be repossessed when required, the landlord will be able to get a court order to regain possession if he needs the house for either a farmer or an employed worker.
Most hon. Members emphasised that this is a difficult problem and there are difficulties in legislating for what they would like to achieve. The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) said that, of course, the main thing to do was to see that the house, when it was vacant for the purposes of agriculture, was put to the best possible use. I think that we should probably agree with that, if it could be done. It has already been said that we do not know how big the problem may be. We do not know how many amalgamations there will be, and we do not know how many previous farmers will be given permission to stay on or have the houses let to them. I think that we may be inclined to overestimate the extent of the problem.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) suggested that, if the farmer really wanted to get out of the difficulty, he only had to let the house to a farmworker and it would then be covered.—(HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman said that it could be done—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] The hon. Gentleman said that it could be done in that way. It might be unsatisfactory, but that is the point which he made.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Under the Government's present legislation, it is legally possible to get round the difficulty in that way, but it gets round it in a thoroughly unsatisfactory way, a way which certainly would not be approved by the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), quite apart from anything else. It is the Government's job to make sensible and fair legislation.

Mr. Mackie: I was merely repeating the point which the hon. Gentleman made. There are ways of getting over the difficulty, he said, which are unsatisfactory. I was agreeing with him.
The Clause goes far beyond Section 16 of the Rent Act, 1965, in extending this special treatment—I emphasise that it was special treatment for farm workers' cottages under that Act—to farmhouses in the case of amalgamations. I recognise that, when two farms are amalgamated, one of the farmhouses will become redundant as the principal base for managing the new amalgamated unit. It may well be, also, that, at the time of the amalgamation, the redundant house is not immediately required for a farm worker to be employed on the unit. If that situation arises, the landlord may decide to let the house to someone without any connection with the unit, or to someone not in his employment, in agriculture, or, perhaps, to someone not engaged in agriculture at all. Naturally, he has a right to do this, and, subject to the law, he is free to act as he chooses. But, if he does let in these circumstances, is it right that he should expect special treatment if he finds later on that he wants the house after all for one of his workers or for someone else mainly engaged in agriculture?
The hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Sir H. Legge-Bourke) said that there is a certain antipathy towards agriculture in some villages in the rural areas and in urban areas, too, and he thought that something along the lines of the Clause would help to alleviate that. I should very much doubt that. It might well work the other way. If there were court orders putting people out of houses, it might go in the other direction and not help at all. There are all these difficulties which come to mind.
The Government have already gone a long way in Section 16 of the 1965 Act by enabling cottages to be repossessed in this way where they have been occupied at any time by an employed worker. If the amalgamator wants to use a cottage for a worker, he will have the protection of that Section as soon as he puts his intentions into effect. We are not at all convinced that we should do any more.
My hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) made the valid point—I think that it was agreed to by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber)—that there might be a drafting point on the wording of the Clause as it stands, with reference to


the previous owner or occupier of the farm being left in the farmhouse, and he suggested that the word "vacated" in place of "relinquished" might solve the problem. May I remind the House that all hon. Members in Committee insisted—this was our view as well—that one of the things we wanted to see as much as possible was the previous occupiers of the amalgamated holdings having the first chance either to buy or to rent the house. We should be in difficulty there, too, in spite of any change in the wording, because, whatever happened, the Rent Act would come into operation and there would have to be another Clause of some kind to protect them. I doubt that any rewording of the Clause would deal with that matter. As I say, there is difficulty in legislating for all cases. Hon. Members have instanced a variety of possible situations, and we should have great difficulty in trying to legislate for all the cases which might come up.
5.45 p.m.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that this was a perfectly straightforward Clause. It is anything but straightforward. It raises complications all along the line. Someone pressed us to consult the previous Minister of Housing and Local Government on the question. We have consulted the present Minister on this point, and I can tell the House that he would not be very happy at having to look at other legislation. This is an Agriculture Bill, not a Housing Bill, and something might well have to be done subsequently in housing legislation.
However, we are not rigid about it. We see the difficulty. We appreciate the arguments which have been raised. I appreciate some of the arguments put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell), although I do not agree with all he said, as he knows; we have argued about this question before. At this stage, I must ask the House to reject the Clause.

Mr Keith Stainton: Will the hon. Gentleman deal with the possibility that this kind of situation might be a direct disincentive to amalgamations? This point has not been raised so far. The debate has concentrated upon vacant dwellings. Might there not be a definite disincentive to

what the Government seek to achieve by the Bill?

Mr. Mackie: Again, if we were to try to legislate for all the things which might or might not be disincentives, our legislation would become even more complicated.

Mr. Godber: indicated dissent.

Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman shakes his head. In Committee he was one of the greatest opponents of complicated legislation. I assure him that, if we were to start mixing up housing legislation and agriculture legislation, we should get into even greater difficulty and complication than he has accused us of getting into so far.

Mr. Godber: It is true that I have many times insisted that our legislation should not be too complicated. On this issue, there is a way out. If the hon. Gentleman accepts that a case has been made, as he has half indicated, there is a way out for him, and I am sure that his hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth will help him.

Mr. Mackie: I have said that we are not rigid yet about it, but I warn the House that we have looked at the question very carefully. We appreciate the position, but we do not see a clear way out of the difficulty at the moment. We shall look at it again. However, I emphasise that we have looked at it most carefully and we remain very doubtful about whether we could put suitable legislation into the Bill to meet the point. Certainly, it could not be in the form of this Clause. I ask the House, therefore, to reject it.

Mr. Stodart: I congratulate the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) on his intervention today which, like almost all his interventions in Committee, although they were not, perhaps, as frequent as we would have liked, struck a note on our side, particularly among those who, like himself, are not of the English race. The hon. Gentleman's intervention on this occasion was particularly sound, and it called to mind a remark at one stage by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) that he did not find the advice of lawyers always entirely reliable. I did not understand that crack to have been directed at his hon. Friends, but it is


evident that he does seem to group within that category of the legal profession those who sit so patiently and loyally on his own back benches.
The contribution from the hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) was good up to a point but thereafter, I thought, he went completely off the rails. He mentioned the understanding about retired farmers being allowed to remain. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has made clear, we would be perfectly happy that this should happen and that a safeguard of some kind to this effect should be written into the Bill.
The hon. Member for Merioneth said that we had wrongly used the word "relinquish" and should have said "vacate". I am quite ready, as, I am certain, is my right hon. Friend, to stand corrected about this because, as simple laymen, we do not pretend to appreciate the subtle differences of these two words.
When, however, the hon. Member for Norfolk, North went on to say that the number of tied cottages would be increased and that this extension had not been made under the Rent Act, he seemed not to be ready to face realities. The only thing about which I then had slight hope was when, towards the end of his speech, the hon. Member said that if we included some kind of reservation about retired farmers, he might not feel as strongly as he did.
All I can say about the reply from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is that in Committee upstairs there were many times when he looked unhappy in expounding the words of wisdom—I do not know whether he regards them as wisdom—which he was given to pronounce, but never have I thought that the hon. Gentleman looked as gloomy as he has on this the first day of his return from the Recess. I agree that it is a difficult problem. The hon. Gentleman said that we may be over-estimating the difficulty. If that is the case, it does not show great optimism on his part for the success of this amalgamation scheme.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary echoed the words of his hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North and said that our proposal would go too far beyond the Rent Act. The hon. Gentleman wandered far away from realities, as he

knows them perfectly well with all his experience of the industry, in his determination to avoid facing squarely the facts. What does the hon. Gentleman think will be done? I ask him this in preference to his right hon. Friend because the hon. Gentleman must personally have had to face this problem before.
As things stand and if the new Clause is not accepted, three moves are open. The house can be sold separately. If it were mine, I would certainly hesitate to do that because I would suspect that I might in the future need it for, perhaps, a farm manager or extra farm-workers. Alternatively, the house could be let immediately to a farmworker. At the rate at which the labour force is declining however, farmworkers are not easy to get immediately. I could certainly quote cases outside Edinburgh, and I am sure that they could be multiplied all over the country, where advertisements for tractor men and others have been put in newspapers week after week and there has been no response. Thirdly, one could safeguard oneself by leaving the house empty, and that is what will almost certainly be done.
Despite all the deterioration that the house would be bound to suffer, in view of the quite unpredictable state of farming—I am choosing my words carefully when I say "unpredictable"; I do not wish to drag in to this argument, which we on this side have tried to argue with sincerity and from a practical point of view, anything about the uncertainty of farming of which many people speak. That may be the case or not, Certainly, in good times or in bad, the future of farming is always unpredictable.
I would be the last to attempt to forecast what will happen in, say, the grain-growing areas where amalgamations might take place in the course of the next 10 years. The Minister is well acquainted with the difficulties of those who have cut their staff to the bone with mechanisation, who are growing white crop after white crop and are now beginning to wonder whether, if a break crop of, say, rape or beans did not prove successful, they might have to go back to the system which originated north of the Border of ley farming—say, three years of grain followed by two years of grass.
Almost inevitably, if that happened one would require extra staff again. I think it most unlikely that one would be able to put a flock of sheep or a herd of cattle on to a farm that had been perpetually white-cropped for many years without introducing extra staff. It is for this reason that I think it so essential and so essentially practical from the point of view of any farmer that he dare not let the sort of house that we are discussing be occupied for fear that at some future date he may not get it back.

Mr. Hazell: In view of the lack of response to advertisements for staff to which the hon. Member has referred and the continual rundown of the labour force, where does he anticipate that he will get his new staff?

Mr. Stodart: That is a perfectly fair point. Like many others, however, I think that a momentum is gathering from day-release colleges. Certainly, at least a couple have come into existence, not exactly within a mile of Edinburgh, but not far outside it, in the last few years and I hope that the tide may turn. I certainly think it dangerous for either the hon. Member or the House to assume that it will not. Again, however, this is one of the unpredictable factors.
For those reasons and in the light of the unequivocal reply of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that he had looked into the matter but could see no solution and must resist the Amendment, if that is the attitude of the Government we on these benches cannot in any circumstances agree with the hon. Gentleman and we shall divide the House in support of the Clause.

6.0 p.m.

Mr. John Farr: Hon. Members on both sides have referred to the unpredictability of agriculture and the changes that may come about in the industry. It should be remembered that Britain may enter into an association with the Common Market and that our whole pattern of farming may change. Certain areas which are now concentrating on one type of production might find it necessary to go in for another. For example, some eastern parts of Britain might find it necessary to concentrate more on livestock and less on grain. This

in turn, would entail a major change in our farming practices. Such a change would inevitably involve the need for more dwellings for agricultural workers.
I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee which considered this Measure but, having heard the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's comments—which can only be described as deplorable—it would seem that his approach to our proposal is one of sheer stubbornness. There is a world of commonsense in the new Clause and I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's attitude to it.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) spoke of farmhouses and cottages in his constituency remaining vacant. I assure him that he need not go to the Gaelic fringes of Britain to see such vacant premises. I could take him to the heart of the country—to Leicestershire and elsewhere—where a great many good farm cottages have remained empty for years and will continue to remain empty simply because farmers dare not take the chance of letting them to nonagricultural workers, for they are certain that, once that step has been taken, they will never be able to offer those premises to farm workers. Farmers who let their cottages are committed to their present labour forces and are less able to change their methods of farming.
While the Joint Parliamentary Secretary seemed to be agreeing with the arguments that have been adduced in favour of the Clause, for some stubborn reason he felt it necessary to reject it. Having sat through that example of stubbornness, I thank my lucky stars that I did not have to listen to the hon. Gentleman in Committee upstairs.

Mr. John Mackie: I will reply briefly to some of the ridiculous comments made by the hon. Member for Harborough (Mr. Farr). If I did not give him a good enough reason for not accepting the Amendment, he certainly gave me a good reason for rejecting it, for if there are so many farmworkers' cottages lying empty, why should we take steps to ensure that even more lie empty? I am all for commonsense, as long as that does not mean that I must always agree with the opposite point of view.
I regret that the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) thought


that I looked gloomy. Perhaps I should not look too cheerful lest I give the lie to the catalogue of woe listed by the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) earlier. I will not comment on that further now, but perhaps I will do so later, in private.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West really wants us to legislate for all the unpredictable things that might happen in agriculture in the near and far future. The hon. Member for Harborough wants us to do the same, As my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) pointed out, the number of farm workers has been decreasing over the years. In the years following 1953—I am not referring to 13 years of Tory rule but to the figures I happen to have with me—24,000 men left the industry each year. That trend has been continuing, although at this stage it is not for me to argue whether it is a good or bad thing. It shows, however, that, despite the trend, the industry has become more efficient and that, therefore, hon. Gentlemen opposite

are over-estimating the need for the Clause.

I have promised to look at the matter further and I assure the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West that while he was having a nice holiday during the Christmas Recess I was looking carefully into this and other matters. However, I must ask the House to resist the new Clause.

Mr. R. J. Maxwell-Hyslop: I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will agree that what concerns one farm may not necessarily be the same as the average tendency throughout the industry, particularly from the point of view of providing accommodation for farm workers. This particularly applies to the dairy industry, where a minimum of labour is needed and where, if that minimum is not provided, milk production will continue to fall even more steadily than it is falling at present.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 127, Noes, 216.

Division No. 230.]
AYES
[6.8 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; stone)
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh


Astor, John
Glover, Sir Douglas
Murton, Oscar


Awdry, Daniel
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Baker, W. H. K.
Goodhew, Victor
Onslow, Cranley


Balniel, Lord
Gresham Cooke, R.
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Batsford, Brian
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Bell, Ronald
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gos &amp; Fhm)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Pink, R. Bonner


Black, Sir Cyril
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Blaker, Peter
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Prior, J. M. L.


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hawkins, Paul
Pym, Francis


Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John
Heald, Rt. Hn. Sir Lionel
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis, John
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Ridsdale, Julian


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Heseltine, Michael
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Hill, J. E. B.
Roots, William


Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Hirst, Geoffrey
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bullus, Sir Eric
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Burden, F. A.
Holland, Philip
Scott, Nicholas


Campbell, Gordon
Howell, David (Guildford)
Sharples, Richard


Channon, H. P. G.
Hunt, John
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Sinclair, Sir George


Clark, Henry
Jopling, Michael
Smith, John


Clegg, Walter
Kershaw, Anthony
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stodart, Anthony


Costain, A. P.
Kirk, Peter
Summers, Sir Spencer


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Kitson, Timothy
Taylor, Frank (Moss side)


Crouch, David
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Teeling, Sir William


Cunningham, Sir Knox
Lambton, Viscount
Tilney, John


Dalkeith, Earl of
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dance, James
Lloyd, Rt. Hn. Selwyn (Wirral)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Loveys, W. H.
Walters, Dennis


Digby, Simon Wingfield
MacArthur Ian
Ward, Dame Irene


Doughty, Charles
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Weatherill, Bernard


Drayson, G. B.
Maddan, Martin
Webster, David


Eden, Sir John
Maginnis, John E.
Whitelaw, William


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Maude, Angus
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fisher, Nigel
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Younger, Hn. George


Forrest, George
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)



Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. More and Mr. Grant.




NOES


Albu, Austen
Galpern, Sir Myer
Moyle, Roland


Allen, Scholefield
Gardner, Torry
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Anderson, Donald
Garrett, W. E.
Murray, Albert


Archer, Peter
Gourlay, Harry
Newens, Stan


Armstrong, Ernest
Gregory, Arnold
Oakes, Gordon


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Oram, Albert E.


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Orbach, Maurice


Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Orme, Stanley


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Hamling, William
Oswald, Thomas


Beaney, Alan
Hannan William
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Bence, Cyril
Harper, Joseph
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Palmer, Arthur


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Haseldine, Norman
Pardoe, John


Bessell, Peter
Hazell, Bert
Park, Trevor


Bidwell, Sydney
Heffer, Eric S.
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Bishop, E. S.
Henig, Stanley
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Blackburn, F.
Hilton, W. S.
Pavitt, Laurence


Boardman, H.
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Booth, Albert
Hooley, Frank
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Hooson, Emlyn
Pentland, Norman


Braddock, Mrs. E. M.
Horner, John
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Brooks, Edwin
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Brown,Bob(N'c'tie-upon-Tyne, W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Price, William (Rugby)


Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Howie, W.
Randall, Harry


Buchan, Norman
Hoy, James
Rankin, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Redhead, Edward


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hunter, Adam
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hynd, John
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Carmichael, Neil
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Robinson, W.O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Coe, Denis
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rose, Paul


Coleman, Donald
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Conlan, Bernard
Judd, Frank
Ryan, John


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Kenyon, Clifford
Sheldon, Robert


Crawshaw, Richard
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Shinwell, Rt. Hn. E.


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Lawson, George
Shore, Peter (Stepney)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Leadbitter, Ted
Short, Mrs. Renée(W'hampton, N.E.)


Dalyell, Tam
Ledger, Ron
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Lestor, Miss Joan
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Davidson,James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Slater, Joseph


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Lipton, Marcus
Small, William


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Lomas, Kenneth
Snow, Julian


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Loughlin, Charles
Spriggs, Leslie


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Luard, Evan
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)


Dell, Edmund
Lubbock, Eric
Swingler, Stephen


Dempsey, James
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Thornton, Ernest


Dewar, Donald
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Thorpe, Jeremy


Dickens, James
McCann, John
Tinn, James


Doig, Peter
McGuire, Michael
Urwin, T. W.


Dunnett, Jack
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Varley, Eric G.


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Mackle, John
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Mackintosh, John P.
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Eadie, Alex
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Watkins, David (Consett)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Weitzman, David


Ellis, John
Mahon, Peter (Preston, s.)
Wellbeloved, James


Ensor, David
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
White, Mrs. Elrene


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Whitlock, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Manuel, Archie
Wilkins, W. A.


Fernyhough, E.
Marquand, David
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mendelson, J. J.
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mikardo, Ian
Winnick, David


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Millan, Bruce
Winterbottom, R. E.


Ford, Ben
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Woof, Robert


Forrester, John
Molloy, William
Yates, Victor


Fowler, Gerry
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)



Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Freeeon, Reginald
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. McBride and Mr. Grey.

Clause 1.—(THE MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSION.)

6.15 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 40, at the end to insert:

(8) No recommendation made by any trade association or group of persons engaged in any section of the livestock industry or livestock products industry and which is in accordance with advice given or recommendations made by the Commission by virtue of paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 1 to this Act shall be affected by


the provisions of Part 1 of the Restrictive Practices Act 1956.
This subject will not be entirely unfamiliar to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Hoy), because I recollect a discussion on it in the very dim days when the Committee on the first Bill was sitting. It is possible, it may even be likely that recommendations about contracts that could be made, perhaps, by a trade association in the livestock or meat industry, would have to be registered as an agreement under Part I of the Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1956. The court might regard these recommendations as contrary to the public interest. Paragraph 8 of Part I of Schedule 1 specifically excludes the financial aspects of contracts from the Commission's duties, but I do not think that a recommendation need necessarily be financial to be regarded as being against the public interest.
The Parliamentary Secretary, replying on that occasion, said that there was a fear that a trade association might, and I think that I am quoting him here, or nearly so, "bless the Commission's advice and then have to go to the Registrar". He said that his right hon. Friend was discussing the matter with the President of the Board of Trade, and asked me to withdraw the Amendment then so that we could discuss it again in relation to paragraph (8) of Schedule 1. In our anxiety to make progress with the Bill we did not, as the hon. Gentleman will have noticed, put down any Amendments on matters that had already been discussed. We had the most virtuous objection to doing so. I should, therefore, like to know what the present position is with regard to the discussions that the Minister is having with the President of the Board of Trade; and whether, in fact, it would be advisable that these words should at this stage be inserted.

Mr. Hoy: I hasten to accept the hon. Gentleman's invitation. I will not waste any time in talking about this exposition of his virtue during the Committee stage, but I want to say a word or two about the Amendment.
This Amendment would exempt from scrutiny under the restrictive trade practices legislation certain recommendations that trade associations might make to

their members. The proposal is limited to recommendations" in accordance with" the advice which the Commission is empowered to give on the terms of contracts for the sale of meat and livestock. That advice, as the wording of the Amendment duly notes, cannot competently go as far as the financial terms of such contracts, but it could be very useful advice on, for example, the form of the contract.
I should like to explain how far we can go under the Bill as it is now drafted. Two points must be made clear. The first is that there is, of course, no reason why the Commission should not itself publicise its recommendations in regard to contracts. There would be no question of those recommendations being registrable under the 1956 Act. Secondly, we and the Board of Trade are advised that if trade associations wished merely to pass on the recommendations of the Commission to their members without themselves commenting on those recommendations or urging that the recommendations should be followed, there is no reason why those associations should not do so without incurring an obligation to register under the Act.
That covers a large part of the field; but once we go beyond publicity by the Commission itself, or the mere passing on of the Commission's recommendations to a trade association, we should be opening the door pretty widely. We should be admitting cases in which the association added its own advice, endorsing or urging compliance with some or all of the Commission's recommendations. This is not an issue which arises only with advice originating from the Meat and Livestock Commission. It could arise with other commodities and with trade associations outside agriculture and food, desiring to endorse recommendations made by bodies more fully representative of the industry as a whole than they themselves might be.
Legislation designed to control restrictive practices must cause some difficulty whenever this point is reached. The problem has come up before, for example, in commending horticultural standards. A blanket exemption would raise greater issues than those concerned with meat and livestock contracts. If there is any question of whether it is right that restrictive practices legislation should apply


to recommendations of trade associations, it would have to be considered generally, as would any proposal for revising the categories of agreements and recommendations which are subject to registration.
I know that hon. Members opposite would not wish to weaken the restrictive practices legislation any more than we would wish to do so. Indeed, they are on record as wishing to strengthen it. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade considers that any attempt to deal with this question piecemeal could seriously weaken the 1956 Act. I therefore ask hon. Members opposite not to press for an addition to the Bill to cover this point. What has been said by the hon. Gentleman on this difficulty has been carefully noted by the Board of Trade, where the working of the 1956 Act is kept under review. I can assure him that the points he has made have been noted. I think he will welcome this explanation, but I regret that I cannot go any further this afternoon.

Mr. Stodart: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his explanation. In view of what he has said I do not propose to press the Amendment, but beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 2.—(THE COMMISSION'S COMMITTEES.)

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 2, line 41 after '(1)', to insert:
'On the advice of appropriate professional and representative bodies'.
The object of the Meat and Livestock Commission is that of
promoting greater efficiency in the livestock industry and the livestock products industry.
This function obviously requires technical knowledge, skill and experience. The appointment of committees is surely a matter in which professional representative bodies such as livestock committees of the National Farmers' Unions of Scotland, England and Wales and Northern Ireland and butchers' federations, as well as the Consumer Council, should be directly consulted and enabled to use their knowledge and experience.
I do not intend to delay the House on this small Amendment. I hope that the Minister will accept it. If he cannot do so, will he give an assurance that the appropriate bodies will be consulted in the appointment of the committees?

Mr. Stainton: I cannot support this Amendment, but it gives an opportunity to make comments which, I think, are relevant on Clause 2. I cannot support the Amendment for two reasons. First, the actual wording would strip the Minister of many of his powers and would impose on him the obligation to accept that advice. In Schedule 1, there is an obligation laid on the Minister in two cases, that of the Production Committee and that of the Distribution Committee, to have consultations with such organizations as appear to him appropriate.
What is still missing—and I am distressed at this because the Minister and I had exchanges on this matter in Committee—is an obligation on the Minister to consult any body in regard to appointments to the Consumers Committee. I feel this deeply. I believe that I am in order, Mr. Speaker, in developing this point so far as it comes within the Amendment.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must not address himself to an Amendment that we are not discussing.

Mr. Stainton: I was trying to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I was in order in interpreting the Amendment we are discussing in this sense.

Mr. Speaker: In what sense?

Mr. Stainton: In the sense that the Amendment suggests that appointments to the three committees shall be
on the advice of appropriate professional and representative bodies".
I have pointed out that this applies, in effect, in two cases, but not in the case of the Consumers Committee. In Clause 1(2) it is stipulated that in carrying out its functions
the Commission shall have regard to the interests of consumers
but that is as far as the Minister is obligated in this regard. There is a clear need to embroil the consumers officially in this situation and to write into the


Bill that such organisations as the Consumer Council or the Catering Trades Association and various other bodies which represent consumers should be consulted about the membership of the committees.

Mr. Peart: I hope that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) will not press this Amendment. When he looks carefully at the Bill I think he will appreciate that the Amendment is unnecessary. I believe the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) appreciates this.
I understand that the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West is anxious to write into the Statute that I should consult all interests concerned, certainly about persons to be appointed to the committees; but this is already provided for in Part III of Schedule 1 to the Bill. If the hon. Member looks at page 86 he will see references to consulting appropriate organisations in lines 11 and 36. It is our intention to obtain nominations by a similar procedure to that which has been used for the nomination of persons for membership of P.I.D.A. Under this system the organisations concerned would be asked to nominate candidates for each seat and the Secretary of State for Scotland and I would appoint a member from those nominations. With all the safeguards in the Bill, there is no need to elaborate that. Consultations will take place.
The Consumers Committee will be entirely new and it would be extremely difficult to specify its membership. There are various organisations whom I have consulted even before the Bill was introduced. I understand the purpose which the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West has in mind, but I hope that with this explanation he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. James Davidson: I thank the Minister for that explanation. In view of the assurance he has given, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3.—(COMMISSION'S DUTIES IN CON NECTION WITH FATSTOCK GUARANTEED PRICES AND CALF SUBSIDIES.)

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 3, in page 4, line 4, at the end to insert subsection (5) of'.
The effect of the Amendment would be to leave out the reference to Section 1. There was a certain amount of misunderstanding in Committee, both on the first occasion and when we met again, about the way in which the Commission would fit in with the delegation of the administration of fatstock guarantees. These are divided into three.
First, under the fatstock guarantees covered by the Agriculture Act, 1957, there is the certification of stock, either live or dead. Secondly, there is the payment of subsidy. Thirdly, there are the enforcement measures to protect the guarantees from abuse. The hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) told us that certification is the only one of these which is to be fully delegated; the Commission is to play no part in the payment of subsidy and only a secondary rôle in the enforcement measures.
There is in Section 1(1) of the 1957 Act a provision for the Government to provide guaranteed prices. Subsection (2,a) provides for payments by the Minister to a board administering a marketing scheme of sums which are the difference between the guaranteed prices fixed by the Government and the receipts by the Board. Subsection (2,b) provides for payments by the Minister to producers. Subsection (2,c) provides for purchases by a Minister or the Board of produce and, in the case of purchases by the Board, for payment by the right hon. Gentleman of any trading losses.
Subsection (3) deals with prices which are to be determined by the right hon. Gentleman in the light of the annual review. Subsection (4) deals with the variation of guaranteed prices by the Minister. Subsection (6) deals with the dates which could be involved when guarantees are varied.
Subsection (5) appears to have relevance to the Commission's duties as they have been described to us, because it enables the guarantees to be applied only to certain descriptions or different


guarantees to be given to different descriptions. This seems clearly to be a matter for the Commission, because this ties in with certification. So far as I can see, the other subsections of Section 1 do not. If the whole of Section 1 is imported into the Bill, we shall be doing just what we were told should not be done and bringing the Commission into payments. For that reason we have attempted to clarify and streamline the matter and confine the Commission's activities strictly to subsection (5).

Mr. Hoy: We had a comprehensive debate on this question in Committee. My hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary made a very clear statement in Committee which I shall repeat later. The Amendment would not affect the Minister's powers under Section 9(4) of the Agriculture Act, 1957, to delegate functions conferred upon him by an order under Part I of the 1957 Act. These powers are, and would remain, exactly as stated in Section 9(4) of that Act, which says:
An order under this part of this Act, may provide for the delegation by the Minister of any functions (other than the function of determining guaranteed prices or factors relevant to the operation of such prices) conferred or imposed on him by the order.
The Amendment would limit the duty placed on the Commission to perform those functions. It would not affect the duty to perform functions under Section 5 of the 1957 Act, but it would confine the duty to perform functions under Section 1 to those specified in subsection (5) of that Section.
I am advised that Section 1(5) of the 1957 Act merely provides that orders in relation to guaranteed prices may include particular types of provisions. It does not itself give authority to provide for guaranteed prices and it would not of itself be a sufficient reference to cover the purposes we have in mind for Clause 3 of the Bill. The arrangements relating to guaranteed prices generally are authorised by Section 1(1) of the 1957 Act and subsections (2), (5) and (6) of that Section deal only with refinements to allow suitable arrangements to be made in particular circumstances.
I therefore ask the House not to accept the Amendment. It may help if I repeat what was said by my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in Standing

Committee about what functions we are or are not proposing to confer on the Commission in this connection. My hon. Friend said this:
First, the Commission will take over certification of individual animals and carcases at live and deadweight centres. Secondly, payment of subsidy will continue to be the responsibility of the Headquarters Payments Unit of the Agricultural Departments. Thirdly, while the Commission will be responsible for ensuring that it certifies only eligible stock, general enforcement work, including investigation of fraud, will continue to be the responsibility of the Agricultural Departments."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 7th July, 1966; c. 123.]
I hope that what I have said will prove acceptable and that the hon. Gentleman will consider withdrawing his Amendment.

Mr. Godber: We have listened with care to what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said, but we are not particularly happy about it. He has told us that the explanation is provided by the words which appear later in the Clause, namely, "delegation under section 9(4)". He says that Section 9(4) gives the power and that, even if the Amendment were accepted, the power for the delegation of these wide powers would still exist. If so, we perhaps misunderstood the matter previously, but we still invite the Government to consider whether the powers they seek to provide for the Minister to confer on the Commission are not wider than is necessary.
This is the point which we were seeking to limit. The hon. Gentleman has properly referred us to lines 10 and 11 which are specific references to Section 9(4). It is Section 9(4) which widens the power. Therefore, we ought to have directed our attention in the first place to that particular subsection.
We are seeking to limit in some degree the amount to which delegation should be made to the Commission. We can understand the need for delegation in regard to matters which we have discussed previously in Committee, but I thought that we had a clear indication then, as we have had this afternoon, that it is not the intention of Ministers to give this wider delegation. If that is so, I invite the hon. Gentleman to look at the matter again. It seems to me to be bad drafting and unnecessarily wide if the intention is to provide for powers which may never be


used. Surely Ministers ought not to seek powers if they are not proposing to use them.
Everything that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said confirms our feeling that perhaps our Amendment is wrong in that we have not directed it to the right part of the Clause. But our intention is right. I hope that there will be further limitation here. The very fact that Ministers have had to assure hon. Members, as they did in Standing Committee, that there is no intention to go further indicates that in taking the powers they have gone unduly wide.
If we have concentrated on the wrong point, that is perhaps due to our misreading, but with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's help we have now got our minds firmly fixed on lines 10 and 11 and I hope the hon. Gentleman will ensure that something is done in this connection in another place.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 4, in page 4, line 18, at the end to insert:
'where accompanying an authorised officer of the Minister'.
I would suggest, (Mr. Speaker, if you should agree, that it might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we took Amendment No. 21, to Clause 11, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'Commission' and insert:
'Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and authorised officers of the Commission where accompanying an authorised officer of the appropriate Minister'.
I think that hon. Members will agree that they are both on the same point.

Mr. Speaker: It is suggested that with this Amendment we take Amendment No. 21. If that proposal has the agreement of the House, so be it.

Mr. Hoy: During our debates on Clauses 3 and 11, in Standing Committee, we made it clear that we intended that the powers of entry of authorised officers of the Commission under these two Clauses should be exercised only when those officers accompanied authorised officers of the Minister. We undertook to consider whether it would be possible to amend the Bill to make this clear, and

for this reason I am moving these Amendments.
These Amendments to Clauses 3 and 11 limit the powers of entry to those occasions where the Commission's authorised officer accompanies the authorised officer of the Minister. In the Amendment to Clause 11, which extends to Northern Ireland, we have included the necessary provisions for authorised officers of the Ministry there to exercise powers of entry. I hope that I have met the request which was made in Standing Committee.

Mr. Godber: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for moving this Amendment. We on this side of the House are always glad when errors of omission as well as commission are acknowledged so readily by the Government and when they come forward with an Amendment to meet a point which worried us in Committee. We think that this is a definite improvement, and are grateful to the Government.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6.—(COMPULSORY USE OF SYSTEMS OF CLASSIFICATION OF CARCASES.)

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 140, in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert:
Provided that if in proceedings against any person for an offence under this subsection it is proved—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to an act or default of some other person, and
(b) that the person charged took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by him or any person under his control,

then, subject to the next following subsection, the sperson charged shall be acquitted of the offence.
(5) A person charged with an offence under the last foregoing subsection shall not be entitled to be acquitted by virtue of the proviso thereto unless, not less than fourteen clear days before the hearing, he has given notice in writing to the prosecutor of his intention to rely on that proviso, specifying the name and address of the person to whose act or default he alleges the commission of the offence was due, and has sent a like notice to that person; and that person shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence.
This subsection shall not apply to Scotland.


(6) Where the commission by any person of an offence under subsection (4) above is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence; and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we shall also consider Amendment No. 9, to Clause 8, in page 9, line 16, at end insert:
Provided that if in proceedings against any person for an offence under this subsection it is proved—

(a) that the commission of the offence was due to an act or default of some other person, and
(b) that the person charged took all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid the commission of the offence by him or any person under his control,
then, subject to the next following subsection, the person charged shall be acquitted of the offence.
(6) A person charged with an offence under the last foregoing subsection shall not be entitled to be acquitted by virtue of the proviso thereto unless, not more than fourteen days after the date of the service of the summons on him nor less than seven clear days before the hearing, he has given notice in writing to the prosecutor of his intention to rely on that proviso, specifying the name and address of the person to whose act or default he alleges the commission of the offence was due, and has sent a like notice to that person; and that person shall be entitled to appear at the hearing and to give evidence.
This subsection shall not apply to Scotland.
(7) Where the commission by any person of an offence under subsection (5) above is due to an act or default of some other person, that other person shall be guilty of the offence; and a person may be charged with and convicted of the offence by virtue of this subsection whether or not proceedings are taken against the first-mentioned person.

Mr. Peart: This Amendment, which follows the lines of similar provisions in other Acts, fulfils an undertaking which we gave at the last meeting of the Standing Committee—columns 1220–1 of the OFFICIAL REPORT show that this point was made—to amend Clause 6 in order to provide a third-party defence against the offences described in subsection (4) of that Clause. These offences relate to contraventions of, or failures to comply with, any provision of a classification marking order under Clause 6.
The Amendment provides that a person charged with an offence under Clause 6(4)

shall be acquitted of that offence if, first, he gives suitable advance notice in writing to the prosecutor and to the third person concerned, informing them that he intends to rely on this form of defence and specifying the third person concerned; and, secondly, that it is proved in the proceedings of the court both that the offence was due to an act or default of that third person, and that the person charged did all he reasonably could to avoid the commission of the offence either by himself or by any person under his control such as an employee.
The Amendment also provides that the third person cited shall be entitled to appear at the hearing, and to give evidence; and that where it is found that the commission of the offence was the fault of someone other than the person charged, that other person shall be guilty of the offence. It is also provided that another person may be charged directly with and convicted of the offence whether or not proceedings are taken against the first person.
The proposed new subsection (5) has not been applied to Scotland because, in practice, the procedure in summary criminal prosecutions in Scotland has not been to require notice of defence in parallel cases. We think it would be right to include a defence of this kind in relation to offences under Clause 6(4), and I ask the House to accept this Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: This Amendment was generated, I think, by the new Clause which we discussed at the end of the Committee proceedings and it certainly goes a good long way in the direction which we wished, our new Clause having been based on the protection given under the Food and Drug Acts.
I should like to comment on what the right hon. Gentleman has said about Clause 6. When the Amendment was first put down it had one subtle but significant difference from its present form, and I should like the Minister to explain the precise difference between "fourteen days" and "fourteen clear days." The word "clear" has been inserted, no doubt for a very good reason, and it would be interesting to know precisely what the difference is.
I now turn to Amendment No. 9. This Amendment was designed to give similar


protection to defendants under Clause 8 as that which has been provided by the Government under Clause 6. In Committee, when we attempted to embrace both Clauses under a single new Clause, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary promised to deal with Clause 6 in this way, but so far as Clause 8 is concerned he said that it would be possible to deal suitably with each type of offence under that Clause when a scheme was drawn up.
I am not clear why there is the distinction in the approach to two Clauses under which the offences are by no means dissimilar, and where there could be too serious a situation to allow of the mere possibility, which is all that it is, of dealing with things in this way.
There is enormous scope under Clause 8 for regulations about labelling and describing meat, and for doing all this excessively, as butchers will be compelled to do. There is a great possibility of those regulations being broken by third parties. I do not think that the proprietor of a butcher's shop could be expected personally to supervise all these matters all the time, because a butcher must be away at market quite a lot. He must be away from his premises for a minimum of one day a week and possibly more, and it would be most unjust if he had personally to bear the responsibility for mistakes in wording on labels and price lists and in the keeping of records, making returns, and so on, where an employee may ignore instructions.
These points may be taken care of under a scheme, but I and my right hon. and hon. Friends do not understand why it is proposed to deal with Clause 6 in the Bill but to leave Clause 8, where the infringements can be just as great, to be dealt with under a scheme. We would like a very clear and adequate explanation from the right hon. Gentleman as to the purpose of this. If he is unable to accept our Amendment we would like him at the very least, after telling us why not, to give an absolute assurance that this will be fully and adequately dealt with under a scheme.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) first raised a point about my Amendment concerning

the period of 14 days. There are two small changes, one following from the other. The first is that the revised Amendment no longer provides for a maximum period of 14 days after the service of the summons during which the person summoned could give notice of his intention to rely on the defence specified. After reconsidering this, we took the view that the interests of the prosecutor and the third party are adequately protected by the other kind of time limit, that is, a minimum period of notice which the person summoned must give before the hearing. We concluded that the sole effect of the provision which we have now dropped would have been to prejudice the accused in the occasional case where the facts were very complicated. I hope that the hon. Member will appreciate that a change has been made.
The hon. Member also asked me why we have not taken action on Clause 8, and he pressed that point in relation to his Amendment. Clause 8 does not itself specify offences, but subsection (4) provides that the offences may be specified in a price-marking scheme made under the Clause. I am advised that this power to specify an offence also includes the power to define or limit that offence by providing in suitable cases for a defence of the kind envisaged in the Amendment.
In other words, as the Bill is drafted at present, a scheme under Clause 8 could provide for a defence on exactly the same lines as the proposed Amendment, where this was appropriate to the type of offence specified. Each case could be dealt with on its merits. The Amendment would go further by providing for a third party defence in any and every case where proceedings are taken for offences under a scheme under Clause 8, whether the third party defence would be appropriate to that type of offence or not.
We have already said in Standing Committee that we would accept that a third party defence would be reasonable in the case of some types of offence. Indeed, we would expect that when the time comes the Ministers and Parliament of the day will scrutinise very carefully any price-marking scheme submitted to them to make sure that such a defence is provided in appropriate cases. That is the whole purpose of a scheme, and we shall have all the safeguards in our legislation.


We cannot accept that this defence should have to be attached to all types of offence, as the Amendment proposes. It may well be that a scheme will and should place responsibility on a particular category of persons for failure to comply with a particular provision of a scheme, or it may be that an offence would be specified in terms which would make a third party defence inappropriate. The Amendment takes no account of those possibilities, whereas the Clause does.
Therefore, since provision for consulting the interests concerned is already made in the Bill, and the need for Ministerial and Parliamentary approval will ensure that the safeguard could never be overlooked, I believe that the Amendment is unnecessary as a means of ensuring that no one forgets to put in that defence in appropriate cases. Furthermore, the Amendment could in some cases provide a defence which was entirely in appropriate to an offence specified in a scheme, and could even defeat the purposes of creating that offence.
For these reasons I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed. I could not accept it, but I think that we have given assurances. I have tried to explain as fully as I can what the position is.

Mr. Godber: I have listened to the Minister with care. Some of his assurances have gone some way to meet our anxieties, but I am not wholly happy with his argument. The whole basis of it is that there is ample opportunity in a scheme to relate the safeguards to the scheme itself. That is how I understand his argument. Does not the same apply to Clause 6 in regard to an order? It is an order in Clause 6 and a scheme in Clause 8, and in each case there would be opportunity for precisely the same provision. I do not suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should withdraw his own Amendment, because it is useful to put those safeguards into the Bill. It has been done in other legislation and I think that the Food and Drugs Acts provide safeguards in this respect.
Clause 8 is much wider in its effect on individuals and will affect more people. All the retail butchers will be affected. That is a much wider category of persons, and is it not right that Parliament should write into the Bill better safe-

guards for those people? I do not think that we are asking too much of the Minister on this. There is no matter of principle between the two sides; it is a matter of sound common sense.
The Minister has not carried me with him in his argument. I cannot see that what applies to Clause 6, with its provision for orders, is not equally applicable to schemes in Clause 8. Far more people are affected by Clause 8, and, therefore, while the assurance may go some way to ease the very genuine anxieties about what could happen to those who would be affected by such a scheme, it does not go nearly as far as if the Amendment were written into the Bill.
I feel great difficulty in understanding why the right hon. Gentleman accepts this provision in relation to Clause 6 concerning an order and not in relation to Clause 8. His speech has not satisfied us. We shall have to continue to ponder the matter and perhaps it will be raised again when it goes to another place.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 8.—(INFORMATION AS TO RETAIL MEAT PRICES.)

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 8, line 27, after "undertakings", to insert "other than travelling shops".
To put it in very simple language, we seek the exemption of travelling shops from any of the schemes that the Commission might bring in. My reason for moving the Amendment is that unless it is accepted the Clause will not be a practical proposition. Indeed, it will make nonsense so far as travelling shops are concerned.
We on this side of the House want the Clause to work, for it will certainly be of help to the consumers. After all, some consumers may have had a raw deal in the past from some butcher's shops over labelling, and so on—not very many. We want the Clause to work, and we do not think that it will work unless travelling shops are exempt.
There is a very real difference between mobile shops and static shops. Even the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has to-admit this. During the Committee proceedings he said:


I turn to the point made by the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). Obviously, the problem of the delivery van is different from that of the static shop. This will be taken into consideration by the Commission in the scheme which is submitted."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 12th July, 1966; c. 185.]
So even the Joint Parliamentary Secretary admits that there is a difference.
But, on reflection, I think that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is wrong here, because there is a vast difference between a delivery van and a mobile shop. The delivery van may be taking out joints already bought, while the mobile butcher's shop is seeking to sell meat to customers on their doorsteps. I stress this very real difference.
This problem concerns not only rural areas where mobile shops visit outlying farms and cottages because the occupants cannot get to the shops. The practice of having mobile shops has stretched now to housing estates, and so one sees mobile butchers' shops in the streets in the urban areas.
Some people may not have encountered a mobile shop, so I will describe one. It may sometimes be very small. It may be just a van with a wooden slab, and the carcases may be carried inside. It may be a much bigger one with a step on which the customer is allowed to climb so that he can see what may be bought. There are very large numbers of mobile shops operating at present, far more than most people think.
Many mobile shops are attached to static shops. Butchers in towns have their mobile shops to go out into the countryside. It will be very strange if we have a large notice in the static shop stating the prices and then another large one in the mobile shop as well. Obviously, there may have to be differences in the prices. There was a little argument about this in Committee. It is true that the prices in the mobile shops may be higher. So there may be some argument as to the differences in price between the static shop and the mobile shop.
Many people like this type of buying. It is attractive to the person in the countryside. The pattern of buying is changing. Many butchers with mobile shops do a very excellent job and give a very good service to the community.
My first reason for wanting the exemption of travelling shops from the provisions in the Clause is the very limited space in the mobile shop for displaying bulky and comprehensive price lists. The number of different prices could be very large—100 or more. It would not be practicable for all those prices to appear on the list in a small mobile shop.
Does the Minister realise that mobile shops do not have to conform to the rules and regulations that static shops have to? Are we to carry this argument further and say that these mobile shops have to have washing facilities, display cabinets, toilets, and so on as one has in a static shop? Of course not. So why should we not have exemptions for the mobile shops as regards price lists? The marking up of every joint is not practical in a mobile shop, either. A three-section price tag is just not on. One can imagine a small van festooned with tags. It is not a practical proposition. That is why we feel so strongly about the Amendment.
Thirdly, butchers using mobile shops usually cut the joint out of a carcase or a lump of meat on the spot—on the doorstep, as it were. This is quite different from a static shop, where the joints are already cut up with nice pieces of string tied round them and price tags easily put on them. This is an entirely different proposition in a mobile shop. If mobile butchers' shops had to conform to the proposed regulations, it would be extremely difficult and time wasting.
I believe that this is a valid Amendment. It is a practical one. Unless this is written into the Clause, it will be most unsatisfactory for mobile butchers' shops. Indeed, those concerned will just not take any notice of it, and the Clause will not be put into practice at all. Certainly, butchers with mobile shops to whom I have spoken have told me in very strong language—which I certainly could not repeat in the House—what they feel ought to be done if this is enforced. One can imagine a mobile shop on a dark, wet night and the man having to write out the price tags and stick them on the joints. If hon. Members had the experience of going out with a mobile shop on a wild night they would know what I mean.
I know that the Minister's argument will be that the Commission "may submit" or "may not submit" a scheme. But I do not believe that this is good enough. We should write into the Clause a provision exempting travelling shops.

Mr. Ian MacArthur: My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) has done the House and the rural community a service by moving the Amendment so vividly.
My hon. Friend pointed to the difference between the delivery van and the mobile shop, and explained that the mobile shop can serve different types of areas. The important point is not so much the mobile shop which goes round housing estates as the mobile shop which serves the far-flung rural communities. As the Minister will appreciate, my constituency depends very largely on the service given by mobile shops of this kind to the people in the outlying villages. I know from experience how valuable the service is, and I appreciate it.
There are times when I feel that the Government have no comprehension of the importance of this type of selling to life in the country districts of Scotland. We have seen the rise in the cost of licenses for these vehicles, the imposition of Selective Employment Tax and the increase in the price of petrol. It seems that everything has been done to drive the small country van out of existence. Fortunately, although some have been withdrawn as a result of the Government's measures, the service by and large still continues. But it would be asking too much if a scheme put forward by the Commission under this Clause were to apply to travelling shops.
The sort of shop I have personal knowledge of is something more than a van. It has, as my hon. Friend said, very often a large hunk of meat in the back which is cut from by the butcher, who is also the man who drives from house to house. He gets out, chats with the housewife and discusses with her what he has to sell and cuts off the meat she wants. The whole thing is conducted in a friendly and free and easy manner which would be impossible if the Commission insisted on the ponderous requirements of the Clause being applied to such transactions.
I agree that the protection afforded by the Clause makes a lot of sense in the High Street, where a team of butchers is behind the counter and where there is a constant business. But it makes no sense in the case of the small man driving a van and acting as salesman and butcher combined. A scheme may require a price list to be displayed and
… the use of prices attached to or displayed with the meat, …
and may require that
… the prices of particular pieces of meat …
should be shown, and so on. Finally, there can be a regulation about the language used for description of the meat.
I can well imagine the sort of language used by a driver if he has to go through a ponderous and pointless exercise like this. Both the Secretary of State for Scotland and the two Joint Parliamentary Secretaries know the Scottish countryside and the service that these small vans render the community. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary who is to reply will not say that there is already provision in the Clause for providing exemptions from a scheme. That is not enough. The exclusion must be clear from the beginning. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and exclude the travelling shops from the Clause, for they perform real service, often in conditions of hardship, to the country communities.

Mr. Stodart: When we discussed this matter in Committee upstairs, the Government were having a rather rough morning. My hon. Friend the Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) had asked, "What about my brisket?" The Joint Parliamentary Secretary had to say that he could not answer that off the cuff. The hon. Gentleman had been asked what a Jacob's Ladder was and was unable to tell us. Altogether, things had been too complex for the Government that morning. That may have been why the hon. Gentleman, although he accepted that there would be difficulties for the travelling shops, said the matter would have to be left to the Commission, which he was sure would be reasonable.
I dare say that that is one way of approaching the matter but it would be more sensible to grasp the nettle of the


travelling shop here and now. Not even the Secretary of State for Scotland, with all his debating powers, could convince the House that it would be a practicable proposition to include the travelling shops, particularly after the description given by my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) of shopping on a cold night with cold hands while the shopkeeper attempts to carry out all the tasks that will be placed upon him under the terms of the Clause without this Amendment.
7.15 p.m.
I have made no secret of the fact that I think that it will be extremely difficult for any shop to comply with these terms—and this applies particularly to small traders—in putting labels on every piece of meat. Admittedly, one label will show the price per lb. and presumably this will be static because it will not matter how often the meat is cut for the price per lb. will remain. But the second label is to signify the weight of the meat itself and will have to be rewritten every time a cut is taken off. This will cause enormous difficulties in ordinary shopping let alone travelling shops.
Many butchers boggle at the idea of having to administer this provision and what is difficult in an ordinary shop is without question enormously more difficult in a travelling shop. Indeed, the Government are in fairyland if they think that such a thing can be done in a travelling shop.

Mr. Hoy: This has been an interesting debate following the one we had on the subject in Standing Committee. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) got himself a little mixed up about the mornings in which we were in difficulty. I was in no difficulty. I remember the morning in question perfectly well. For the first time, so I am assured by the Press, the contents of a sausage had been defined by a politician in the House of Commons. If one achieves that great distinction one must have been thinking very hard.
The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. MacArthur) said that one of the difficulties would be the difference between the small and large travelling shops. He was not thinking so much of the very big ones but of the small ones

which travel around his countryside. We have heard some very descriptive examples.
The hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) gave us an assurance that these shops travel on wheels and that they are driven along. He pointed out that one goes up steps and into them. I agree with that description. Indeed, that is the only kind of travelling shop I have seen in my journeys and I assure him that we should like to keep them going. I said so upstairs when I pointed out that the Government have a certain sympathy for any difficulties that may arise from the Bill.
But the hon. Member was going a little too far when he sought to convey that, every time a travelling shop goes round, it is wintertime and dark. He need not exaggerate his case. Let us be quite clear about this and about the labelling of meat. Both sides of this House have said that they approve the labelling of meat. When it was proved to them that their own proposal meant another price list, the only claim that the Opposition could make was that their labels would be smaller. That was the only difference between us.
This Amendment would exempt travelling butchers' shops from the provisions of any retail meat price marking scheme made under Clause 8. We fully accept that there could be requirements under a scheme under Clause 8 which could be entirely inappropriate to the conditions and circumstances of retailers operating travelling shops. That is one of the reasons why paragraph (a) of subsection (3) provides that a scheme may contain provisions
conferring such exemptions from the requirements of the scheme as may be specified by or under the scheme.
I am surprised that the hon. Member should take exception to that, for I think that it is a very good proviso. We do not think that at this stage it would be advisable to say that no requirement of any kind to give any sort of information about meat prices would ever in any circumstances be appropriate to travelling shops, which is what the Amendment would mean.
In preparing a scheme under Clause 8 the Commission is required by Clause 2 to consult the interests concerned, and it is quite clear that with price marking


schemes there will have to be very close and continued consultation with the retail trade to consider the many practical difficulties which will have to be overcome. It may well prove that no price marking requirements are appropriate to travelling shops. I am not prepared to say now that they will be; but neither am I prepared at this stage to say that nothing can be done to help the considerable number of rural consumers who buy some or all of their supplies from travelling shops. I am prepared only to say that we ought to be able to do in some way for the rural consumer what we hope to be able to do for the urban dweller. It should be remembered that on some housing estates there can be seen travelling shops of a considerable size, and in such cases we would expect customers to get services similar to those which would be obtained in a static shop.

Mr. Stainton: I very much sympathise with what the hon. Gentleman is saying. However, would he not concede that the distribution of meat by travelling shops is probably no more than 12 or 14 per cent. of the market? I am sure that it is in that band. Therefore, would not the back of the problem be broken by enforcement of the price regulations in static shops only? The housewife is not all that isolated that she never makes a trip to town.

Mr. Hoy: I would not say that she was as isolated as that, but even if this trade constitutes only 12, or 14, or 15 per cent. of the total market, its customers are entitled to some assistance in the same way as we propose to give it to the urban dweller. All I am asking is that this possibility should be left open.
In case there is still some doubt, I remind hon. Members that any scheme under Clause 8 has not only to be prepared in consultation with the interests concerned, but must also subsequently be approved by Ministers and may be annulled by Parliament. All these precautions have been taken. I hope that what I am saying will convince the hon. Member for Torrington, who had good reason for moving his Amendment, that we have gone a long way to meeting his case. I hope that he and other hon. Members will agree that we have gone a considerable way to protect both the consumer, urban and rural, and the travelling shop.

Mr. Peter Mills: I am sorry that the Parliamentary Secretary cannot accept the Amendment, but I understand his fears. However, I would have thought that something could have been written into the Clause so that the Commission clearly understood the problems for the mobile shops which the new regulations will entail.
I was not exaggerating and did not suggest for a moment that every night was dark and windy and wet, but it is a fact that there are many occasions when there are those conditions and I still maintain that a mobile shop and a static shop in a town are two entirely different propositions. I forgot to mention that the customer of a mobile shop sees the piece of meat being cut and put on the scale before her very eyes so that there is no chance of her being cheated. I am sure that the fears which I have expressed are well grounded, and I hope that, if nothing else, the Commission will take note of our fears and will ensure that mobile shops are helped to deal with this very practical problem.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 9, line 6, at the end to insert:
(b) conferring powers of entry on officers of local weights and measures authorities appointed, or deemed to have been appointed, under section 41 of the Weights and Measures Act 1963.
During the discussion of Clause 8 and, later, of Clause 23, in Standing Committee, there was a measure of agreement among hon. Members on both sides that weights and measures inspectors of local authorities should be enabled in appropriate cases to enforce the provisions of any scheme made under Clause 8. The matter was raised when we discussed the original Bill and in Standing Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) moved an Amendment, dealing with this very point, which was supported by hon. Members on both sides of the Committee. We then undertook to see whether any reference could be added so as to underline the powers of weights and measures inspectors to collaborate with the Commission in this matter. The present Amendment is to achieve this purpose.


Perhaps I should repeat what was said in Committee—that under the Bill as drafted there is nothing to take away the right of anyone in England and Wales to prosecute for an offence against a scheme made under Clause 8. It could be the Commission, or a weights and measures authority, or an aggrieved consumer. We think that only in exceptional cases would a prosecution be called for and we do not see the Commission going out of its way to create an inspectorate for this purpose. No doubt the Commission would welcome co-operation from weights and measures authorities in taking up appropriate cases under a Clause 8 scheme and the Amendment would ensure that there was no technical obstacle to prevent these inspectors from entering premises for this purpose.
I hope that the Amendment will meet with the approval of the House.

Mr. Stainton: I regard the Amendment as wholly salutary, but what has surprised me is that the Parliamentary Secretary has not referred to any consultations which he may have had with, I imagine, the President of the Board of Trade, who is responsible for the enforcement of the Weights and Measures Act, 1963. I regard that as a considerable omission. My impression is that the weights and measures inspectorate is very heavily burdened with multifarious duties. Indeed, it seems to accumulate duties in an extraordinary way, as can be seen from studying the annual reports which the most progressive boroughs and county boroughs put out.
I repeat my question of whether the Parliamentary Secretary has consulted the President of the Board of Trade and, as it were, got a clearance from him for this proposal. Otherwise, this is a most salutary proposal. The lack of enforcement measures envisaged by Clause 8 as it stands gives cause for misgiving which the Amendment goes some way towards meeting.

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Bernard Conlan: The acceptance of this Amendment will remove an anomaly from the Bill. It will ensure that there is no duplication of visits to shops by different types of inspectors. I know that when the Amendment is written into the Bill it will be widely

acclaimed by the local authorities and also, in spite of what the hon. Gentleman has said, will be welcomed by the weights and measures inspectorate as well.

Mr. Hawkins: I would like to support my hon. Friend in what he has said about the weights and measures inspectorate. This is a very overworked department in the County of Norfolk. I am on the committee of the county council which deals with this department and I hope that we are not giving it another job which it will not be able to carry out without extra staff.
I wanted to ask about the words "deemed to have been appointed". Any inspectors entering shops are somewhat liable to be looked at with distrust by the shopkeeper. I want to be quite certain that people concerned are duly authorised and appointed and have some certificate which they can show to people. We have too many bogus inspectors and others going around the country, often defrauding people. What do these words "deemed to have been appointed" mean? It seems to mean that they have not been appointed but might be at some future date.
Perhaps this can be explained, because it seems that these inspectors should have something to show that they are authorised to inspect and to enter shops.

Mr. Stodart: I should perhaps congratulate the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gateshead, East (Mr. Conlan) on his persistence, which we supported in Committee, and in having this Amendment drafted. I would like to raise one point about it. Section 41 of the Weights and Measures Act, which is referred to, appoints the inspectors and Section 48 of the Act gives them their powers. The powers given under Section 48 are very much greater than the powers given to inspectors under the Bill, that is to the enforcement officers of the Commission.
Will the officers of the weights and measures authority divest themselves of these excessive powers when they are undertaking this particular work? Under Section 48, an inspector within his own area can inspect and test weighing or measuring equipment, he can enter any premises other than a house where such equipment is kept. That is not very excessive. He can then do much more.


He can seize or detain any article liable to be forfeited; he can seize or detain any document, or display relating to price or quantity of goods.
Merely on a point of information, will these inspectors carry powers which are greater than those proposed in subsection (2) of Section 8? I do not think that this was intended, nor do I think that the hon. Member for Gateshead, East intended there to be an elite corps of inspectors who could enter, armed with greater powers than those proposed under that particular subsection of Section 8.

Mr. Hoy: The hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) wanted to know whether we had consulted the Board of Trade. One does not get up and say that one has seen such and such, and so and so, but in a matter of this kind we did consult with the Board of Trade. This provision was pressed upon us by the local authority association, it is not something which the Government were compelling it to undertake.
The hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) asked what did the word "deemed" mean. I am told that in this case it covers inspectors appointed under the earlier Act, repealed by the Weights and Measures Act, 1963. This gives them all of the legal powers necessary. There will not be first or second class inspectors performing this particular job.
The hon. Gentleman said that under Section 41 of the Weights and Measures Act the appointments have been made in this way. It will not in any way weaken or strengthen the powers.

Mr. Stodart: May I ask for further clarification, because, with respect, the hon. Gentleman was not entirely clear? Do they carry the powers given to them later in the Weights and Measures Act into the enforcement of this particular Bill.

Mr. Hoy: I would not like to go as far as that at the moment. It is a legal point of which I have not thought. I shall inquire about it, but I would have thought not.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 8, in

page 9, line 12, to leave out from 'accepts' to end of line 13 and to insert 'for any meat a price in excess of one displayed in connection with it'.
Clause 8(4) would permit a scheme under Clause 8 to make provision in relation to offences against the scheme, and in particular to make a person guilty of an offence if he demands or accepts a price in excess of a price displayed. As the subsection is at present drafted it refers to prices displayed, "by him". That must mean by the person committing the offence.
The purpose of this Amendment is to alter this so that it refers to demanding or accepting a price in excess of a price displayed, whether or not the price was actually displayed by the person committing the offence. We think it right to make this change because without it there would be an offence only where the person who demanded or accepted the excessive price was the person who had displayed it. In any shop where more than one person worked, provided one person displayed the price and another sold the meat, prices in excess of the displayed prices could be charged with immunity. This was not, and clearly should not be, the intention of the provision, and it is to avoid this that the Amendment has been brought forward.

Mr. Jopling: There is one small point which I should like cleared up. I am not too sure what the hon. Gentleman means by the word "price". If he means the total price of the piece of meat, then I follow him and I am sure that he is quite right. However, if he also means the price per lb. of that piece of meat, then we are in some difficulty.
I do not want to cause confusion but I cannot find anything in the Bill suggesting that the word "price" does not also mean the price per lb. May I explain the difficulty in which I think we may find ourselves if the word "price" also includes the price per lb. of a piece of meat? Let me take as an example a piece of meat consisting of pork chops under which there was a kidney and the meat was advertised at so much per lb. Suppose that a lady says, "I should like that. May I have it at the price per lb. advertised?". The butcher then puts it on the scale and the lady says, "Oh, there is a kidney underneath. We do not like kidneys. Will you take it out?". I


understand that the price of kidney per lb. is less than the price of pork chops per lb. The butcher would want to charge more per lb. for the meat without the kidney in than he would if the kidney was sold with the pork chops. One could make the same argument about a piece of sirloin beef which was advertised at so much per lb. The housewife might say, "I do not like all that scrag end on it. Will you cut it off?".
I hope that I have been able to explain to the Minister the difficulty which I foresee may arise from this Amendment. If the word "price" means the price for the whole piece of meat and nothing else, it is all right. But if the word "price" means the price per lb. we could be in a muddle. I hope that the Minister will consider the point I have raised.

Mr. David Mitchell: Contrary to the point raised—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not speak until he is called.

Mr. Mitchell: I beg your pardon, Mr. Speaker.
Contrary to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), would the Minister say what would happen when a housewife goes into a shop, looks at a piece of meat which has a price for the piece of meat on it and says. "That is all right, but I do not want as much as that"; or who says when it is put on the scales, "I do not think that that will be enough for Sunday. Give me a bit more", and another piece is cut off and put on the scales? There is a considerable need for clarification of the Amendment, and I should be grateful if the Minister would give it.

Mr. Hoy: Certain of these points were bound to arise. We are not saying in the Bill that it will be either the price for the carcass or the price per lb. We want to ensure that people do not pay more than the price marked. The pricing scheme will be settled by the Commission in consultation with all the interests concerned. All that we are seeking to say is that people should not have the right to abuse it. What is provided about price is for the scheme, which, as I say, will be drawn up by the Commission in consultation with the interests concerned, subject

always to Ministerial and Parliamentary approval. When the schemes are drafted they must be submitted to Ministers and Parliament.
I hope that the Amendment speaks for itself. Its purpose is to safeguard housewives against being abused in the shops.

Mr. Jopling: I do not think that the Minister has answered my point. Unless I have become stone deaf, I do not think—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I understand that the hon. Gentleman has made his speech. He has forfeited his right to make another without the leave of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9.—(POWERS TO MEET FUTURE DEVELOPMENTS IN LIVESTOCK AND LIVESTOCK PRODUCTS INDUSTRIES.)

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 11, in page 9, line 39, after 'organisation' to insert 'and'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 12—in page 9, line 39, to leave out 'or regulation'—and Amendment No. 15—page 10, line 2, leave out 'rationalisation or concentration' and insert 'improvement'.

Mr. Hawkins: This is the first Amendment to be called on Clause 9, which created a lot of controversy both on Second Reading and throughout the Committee stage. This is the one Clause of the Livestock Commission part of the Bill which has produced acute controversy throughout the industry. I do not intend to go over all the ground again, even it I should be in order in doing so, but it is most important to stress the feeling of this side of the House on this point.
The purpose of the Amendment is to remove the word "regulation" from subsection (1), which gives the Commission power to bring forward a scheme. We are at one with the Government in agreeing to a scheme being brought forward for the purpose of the better organisation or better development of any section of the livestock industry. But, in view of subsection (2), we are against the sort of regulations which appear to be envisaged


to achieve this objective. "Regulation" may sound a harmless word but, looking at subsection (2), we have strong doubts against the words used.
Subsection (2) permits a development scheme to have
provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity, provisions compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings engaged"—
I understand that the word "undertakings" includes markets, butchers' shops, hotel premises, farms and farming under-takings—
and provisions requiring permission to be given for the setting up of a new undertaking or the removal
or reallocation, as I believe it will be
of an existing undertaking".
We feel that the principle of compulsion is unlikely to start the Commission off in the sort of atmosphere in which we hope it will start. We on this side wish the Commission to succeed. There is not much use in setting it up unless it does succeed. It will be quite an expensive and large-ranging body consisting of people who will devote a tremendous amount of time to it. Many of them will be volunteers. The principle of compulsion will give the Commission a bad start.
If the Commission is to have the power to eliminate excess capacity and reduce the number of farming undertakings which produce livestock—pigs or fattened cattle—it is only another way of saying to the small farmer, small butcher and small markets, "You have to go to the wall. We have no room for you. There is no future for you. You must give up fattening cattle in East Anglia or on a particular farm. You have to give up breeding cattle because we believe that all store cattle should be bred in the West or in the Highlands, and in places like that". I do not believe that we should lay down a scheme which compels farmers not to produce what they feel is right for their farms. So we are totally opposed to this element of compulsion in the Bill. It is totally opposed by every organisation—18 of them, including auctioneers, wholesalers and retailers. It is totally opposed by everyone connected with the fresh meat trade, by everyone connected with the imported meat trade, and by everyone connected with the

manufacturing and distribution sides of the trade.
Admittedly, the National Farmers' Union said that it had no objection, provided that the powers were not used on its members. But that is hardly the sort of remark that one would have expected to come from a large organisation like that.
The other regulation proposed would prevent new businesses from setting up without permission, and this, in our opinion, is the most restrictive and un-businesslike regulation we have seen. Is there to be no chance for modern, young businessmen starting up a new butchery business in an area where a scheme is operating, without going to the Commission and disclosing what they intend to do, without giving away, possibly to their rivals, the secrets of their ideas in the future for running a new business?
This will mean a lot more form-filling and applications to the Commission, which cannot do any good. In our opinion, the whole business of compulsion should be rejected. Even at this late stage, I urge the Government to accept the Amendment and omit the words which deal with regulation.

Mr. Stainton: I shall speak to Amendment No. 15, to substitute the word "improvement" for the words "rationalisation or concentration" in the second line of subsection (2).
The object of this Amendment is to ensure that the criteria by which the powers taken under Clause 9 are operated are reasonably clear and beneficial to the industry as a whole. I do not go the whole way with my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It is quite clear that the Commission must have some fairly considerable powers if this operation is to work, and the Minister could quite rightly turn to Schedule 2 and point to the safeguards. With powers conferred on an authority like this, there must be safeguards.
My riposte to that would be that Schedule 2 depends for its authority on the criteria which emerge out of Clause 9 itself, and the criteria here are vague and retrograde. Subsection (1) of Clause 9 provides that the Commission may prepare development schemes for changes


which it considers "to be necessary or expedient", and it may submit them to the Minister. The words "necessary or expedient" are no proper indication of the kind of criteria which we wish to see.
I would much prefer in subsection (2) the substitution of the word "improvement" for the words "rationalisation or concentration", because the word "improvement" could then be read alongside and into the previous expression, "necessary or expedient". It would go a long way towards allaying the fears which various bodies in the meat trade have about the possible implementation of this Clause.
It has been said that the National Farmers' Union is not at all disquieted about the contents of Clause 9. That, no doubt, is due to the fact that in Schedule 2, paragraph 5(2), there is reference to Part I of the 1957 Act. As my right hon. Friend pointed out in Committee, this should be Part I of the 1947 Act if it is to make sense.
Another section of the trade is worried, the butchers, the slaughterhouses and the market operators. The Verdon-Smith Report, in paragraph 655, expressed the view that the 1959 Slaughterhouses Act was entirely adequate, and on page 744 of the Committee's Report we had an expression of view about the lack of need to proceed rapidly with the closure of markets. For all these reasons, Amendment No. 15 should commend itself to the benignity of the Minister.

Sir Frank Pearson: I wish briefly to give my full support to this Amendment. As he so rightly said when we discussed the Bill in Committee, no Clause was more hotly debated than Clause 9 dealing with the compulsory powers to be taken by the Meat and Livestock Commission. I sincerely hope that on this occasion, although we have, probably entirely rightly, been denied the opportunity of debating an Amendment that would have struck out in its entirety the whole Clause—an Amendment which I would have had the greatest pleasure in debating—we now have the opportunity on the secondary Amendment to make our views very clearly heard, not only with our voices, but ultimately, I hope, with our feet in the Lobby.
I have always felt that the drafting of Clause 9 was hypocritical. If we turn back to the opening paragraph of the Bill we find that the object in introducing Part I of the Act was
… the general duty of promoting greater efficiency in the livestock industry and the livestock products industry,
That sounds very nice. That is an objective which we would all wish to have in view, and it is one which we would all wish to pursue with our greatest endeavours. But what do we find when we come to Clause 9? We find that these Draconian powers have been taken, not to make the industry more efficient, not to develop it, but to cut out, root and branch, those parts of the industry that the Commission may, in its wisdom, consider not to be serving the national interest.
Then again, in the opening lines of Clause 9, we again get a degree of hypocrisy which I find hard to forgive. What does the opening paragraph of Clause 9 say? It says:
With a view to enabling the livestock industry and livestock products industry to carry out such changes as the Commission may consider …
That is the objective. Then, in the very next' sentence, the Government turn round and take powers again to bring the axe down. There is no question of making the industry more efficient. The industry is to be wiped out, although sections of it, such as the Meat and Livestock Commission, may not happen.
In this Amendment we are, in fact, debating a matter of principle. All of us welcomed the Bill to begin with. We welcomed many of its provisions. I welcomed the setting up of the Commission. But I think that all of us, on both sides of the Committee, from the very beginning, agreed that this Commission could only be successful in its objective, could only achieve the end that we all want it to achieve, if the Commission, through its wisdom, manages to carry the industry with it. If the Commission does not carry the industry with it, it will not do a worth-while job, or a job which, in the end, will serve the national purpose.
8.0 p.m.
In Committee, I expressed surprise that the National Farmers' Union had seen fit, in its wisdom, to support the


provisions of Clause 9, particularly as it may well be farming units which are told that they may not produce this, that or the other and they have to go out of business. The answer, or part of it, given to me by the N.F.U. was that it believed that these provisions could never be brought into operation. I am not prepared to say what may or may not happen in future.
The Minister of Agriculture is a most sympathetic person, and would not wish to do anything which might create hardship. But who is to say what will happen in the future? Who is to say what the Commission will or will not do? It is a little naive of the National Farmers' Union to put its endorsement to the provisions of this Clause merely on the basis that perhaps the Government or the Commission will never wish to use them. I would much rather have the provisions struck out altogether, but this Amendment would go some way to mitigate the evils of the Clause.
By all means let us have organisation. By all means let us have development. But when we come to the question of regulation, we see in subsection (2) what is really meant:
provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity …
How are we to judge what is excess capacity when we come down to production units at farm-gate level? Who is to go round and say that this, that, or the other production unit must go out in the national interest? Who is to be the great judicial body to weigh the pros and cons which may make so much difference to the very livelihood of producers or manufacturers of meat products?
If the Commission is to be successful in its task, it will never be able to use these powers. If it ever comes to the point of using them, we shall have reached such a stage that the Commission will have failed in its task and will not have carried out the duties laid upon it by the Bill.
I ask the Minister to justify to the fullest possible extent the introduction of these Draconian powers of control in Clause 9. They are pernicious. I do not believe that they will ever serve a useful purpose, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider, even at this late

stage, whether they should be removed altogether from the Clause.

Mr. Alick Buchanan-Smith (North Angus and Mearns): I am glad to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), who has so well highlighted the anomalies in the Clause. In the first place, subsection (1) expresses sentiments with which no one who has at heart the desire to improve meat marketing in this country can disagree, sentiments which were certainly at the nub of the whole Verdon Smith Report and which are at the nub of Part I of the Bill itself. None of us can disagree with the desire for better organisation or with the desire to develop meat marketing in this country. But when we come to the question of regulation, a completely different concept is introduced.
If it were just regulation by itself, without amplification, we might wonder what was meant, but further on in the Clause the meaning of regulation is amplified. There has already been reference to
provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity".
Other forms of regulation are mentioned, not the least of which is the imposition of quotas under subsection (6). Provisions of this kind are in no way compatible with the first two concepts of better organisation and development.
Quotas can have no place whatever in relation to better organisation or the development of meat marketing in this country. Whenever quotas have been imposed, not only in the history of this country but in the history of marketing policies in other countries as well, all that has been achieved has been the maintenance of the status quo of the industry at the time when the quotas were imposed. This cannot be in the interests of meat marketing in Britain. Inevitably, quotas help the inefficient to keep their place within the industry. The imposition of quotas always encourages inefficiency and, more than that, they are an active discouragement to efficiency.
What happens when people are trying to cut costs? Everyone knows that we need to cut costs today if we are to maintain our place in the meat industry. Inevitably, the introduction of new methods leading to greater efficiency


leads to an increase in production, yet those who are improving their efficiency will be the very people to be discouraged if quotas are imposed.
It is utterly wrong to imagine that the imposition of quotas will serve the interests of the industry. If it is to remain viable and healthy, the meat industry, like any other industry, must expand and grow, and it must have reasonable prospects of so doing. In this process, there must be change. The opening words of subsection (1) speak of the carrying out of
such changes as the Commission may consider to be necessary".
Quotas are incompatible with change. By introducing the idea of quotas, the Minister is putting a dead hand on the natural processes of change and development which must take place in the meat industry if it is to survive. Unfortunately, this is typical of the Government's thinking in relation to agriculture, as we have seen in the past two years.
The Minister must reconsider this whole question. I do not believe that he was present in the Standing Committee when the point was raised.

Mr. Peart: I was.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I am glad that he is to give it his personal attention tonight. I hope that he will tell us what the specific purpose of quotas is to be and what he hopes to achieve by them in the meat industry. No right-thinking people can see any economic sense in this proposal. We cannot see how the right hon. Gentleman can possibly tackle properly the problems of meat marketing in this way. I want him to explain how he marries the idea of quotas and regulation with the idea of developing and encouraging our meat industry.

Mr. Prior: I did not have the privilege of serving on the Standing Committee, and this is, therefore, the first time I have heard a good many of the arguments actually put, although I have read the debates very carefully. In many ways, I have mixed views on the whole question of the Meat and Livestock Commission. A few years ago I would have given it a great deal more support than I give it today. When looking back to the reason why this Clause is before us, one goes

back to the Verdon Smith Report and to the chaos in the industry in 1961, which resulted in an enormous Supplementary Estimate of £60 million on the deficiency payments scheme. As the result of that, the Verdon Smith Committee was set up. Following from that, we now have some of the recommendations contained in this Part of the Bill.
I do not think that at that time the Verdon Smith Committee was thinking of the sort of controls and regulations that we have here. The Committee's Report was really something of a disappointment to the Minister. It did not go anything like far enough for him. It did not go anything like far enough then for the National Farmers' Union, who wanted a meat marketing board. The right hon. Gentleman wanted a meat marketing board and he also wanted a commodity commission which, among other things, would have power to control imports as well. It is interesting to find how much the Minister has been tamed by his Department in the last two years, because there is no mention of import controls for the Livestock Commission.
We should look at the example of what has happened in the broiler industry and see what lessons this has for meat generally. The broiler industry has been through its difficult periods. It had quite a few bankruptcies and it has had quite a lot of rationalisation, but all this has been carried out in a free market and in a free economy.
The one lesson that perhaps all of us have failed to learn since the war is that we have not given agriculture anything like the opportunity to have a free market that we should have given it. Therefore, we now find more and more that having denied agriculture that opportunity, we are imposing from the top regulations which can result only in a great deal more of the bureaucracy which we all want to avoid.
My real feeling as the years progress is that it would be much better not to give any commission these powers but to give agriculture more freedom within a free market economy, which it does not have at the moment. I am certain that that attitude is becoming much more acceptable to the farming industry than it was a short while ago. The National Farmers' Union wanted a meat marketing board. What we have in the Bill has


been the next best thing for the union and, therefore, it did not want to reject it out of hand. I am certain that if this question were now taken back to the National Farmers' Union, it would in all probability give a different answer from the one it gave even a few months and certainly a year or two ago.
I ask the Minister to look carefully again at the Clause. He has heard what my hon. Friends have said about quotas and about the powers of rationalisation. Incidentally, I wonder how the Minister ties this in with what is happening with the bacon curing industry. Does he envisage that the Commission would produce a scheme for rationalisation of the bacon curing industry? If so, it is a bit late, because rationalisation is going on fairly fast.
What I am doubtful about is whether this would be one of the jobs that the Commission should have and whether it would find the money from producers, from retailers and from traders generally to buy out certain sections of the industry. If this is what is intended, we are entitled to know a good deal more about it than we have been told. We have before us the example of the bacon curing industry. Surely the Minister today is in a position to give us guidance, in a case which is right in the forefront of news in the agriculture industry, about how he considers that the Commission would work in this case.
8.15 p.m.
I am driven to the logical conclusion that most of the Clause is now totally unnecessary and is flying in the face of all that we now know to be wrong with the economy since the war. If we are not to give our economy more freedom, if we go on, first, subsidising and, secondly, imposing from above, I do not believe that as a nation we shall ever get out of our economic problems. If we would only learn from past mistakes, which the Government, apparently, are not prepared to do, we would make a good deal more progress; and if we could take the broiler industry as an example, we would not have a great deal to worry about.
I hope that we shall vote in favour of our Amendments if the Government do not accept them. I hope very much, however, that the Government will have second thoughts about this matter and that the Minister, a charming and gracious man,

will tell us that all our fears are groundless and that he can accept what we have to offer.

Mr. Peter Mills: I support my hon. Friends in the Amendments, particularly Amendment No. 12, and what they have said about the obnoxious word "regulation". It is a word which I do not like at all. If the Minister knew farmers as well as I do, he would know that they do not like the word one little bit, either. The only regulation which they are prepared to accept is the regulation of imports, but not this kind of regulation which the Government are applying to them. I fully understand their fears.
I would like to see the whole Clause thrown right out. It is to me absolute Socialist nonsense of the highest order, and over the years that is what it will be seen to be. So I would throw it out. I must, however, confine my few comments to the word "regulation", which sticks in my gullet. I do not like it one little bit.
Although the N.F.U. leaders may be prepared to accept the Clause, I am not prepared to accept it. I am a member of the National Farmers' Union and I know that if most of the N.F.U. members could understand the Clause, knew what it implied and what will happen in the years to come if we continue with a Socialist Government, they would want to throw it out also.
I believe that the N.F.U. does not have the backing of its members in saying that it accepts the Clause. It is no good the Minister shaking his head. What I am saying is true. The members of the N.F.U. do not understand what the Clause implies. If they did, they would tell their leaders that they would not have this sort of Socialist nonsense. I would certainly support them.
I see the Clause as a threat to many small farmers. It will be the small farmers who suffer through the regulations, because they will be told that they are inefficient, that they are not viable, that they are uncommercial and all the rest. I see the danger, particularly to the small farmers.
It is not only hon. Members on this side who are opposed to the Clause and to the word "regulation". Many organisations have made it clear that they are opposed to the Clause. The N.F.U.


leaders and the Socialist Government, including the Minister, are the only ones who are in favour of the Clause. Everybody else is opposed to the regulations and the Clause. Why the Minister cannot see this, I do not know.
As a farmer, I see the danger inherent in the Clause. Because of these regulations farmers in certain areas could be told to reduce their production of certain commodities—store stock, for example—and go in for something else. This could particularly affect some parts of the South-West, where it would be difficult for farmers to go in for something else. Rationalisation is bound to take place, but we do not want regulations to force it to take place. It must happen by a gradual process to ensure that people are not harmed and it must not be forced.
Who will say what types of production should be curtailed, which slaughterhouses should stop killing and which markets should not sell further stocks because they have reached their quotas? The right hon. Gentleman may say that I am exaggerating the position by asking these wide-ranging questions. I assure him that this is no exaggeration and that these fears are being expressed by the farming community.
It is no use the Minister referring to the Milk Board. We heard all about that in Committee. This is a different matter. We are referring here to producer boards which were set up by producers and which are comprised of people elected by the farming community. I am, therefore, strongly opposed to the regulations in particular and the Clause in general. I notice that the Minister is smiling. I assure him that in the years to come he will be proved wrong. This is a thoroughly bad Clause and, because it is bad legislation, it should be thrown out.

Mr. Peart: Has the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) nothing to say on this issue?

Mr. Godber: I certainly have.

Mr. Peart: I say that because it would be courteous of me to allow the right hon. Gentleman to speak in support of the Amendment, if he wishes to do so, before I reply. That is the normal custom.

Mr. Godber: Does the right hon. Gentleman wish me to speak first?

Mr. Peart: indicated assent.

Mr. Godber: I assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not being coy. I thought that the Minister had enough to contend with, following the remarks of my hon. Friends, without my adding to the massive onslaught which he has received and from which, no doubt, he requires a little time to recover.
I endorse everything stated by my hon. Friends in support of the Amendment. They have not exaggerated the position and it is with a heavy heart that I speak about the Clause in view of the attitude which the Minister—not forgetting his colleagues—has adopted throughout in this matter. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have refused to face up to the seriousness of the Clause; although that is in line with so much that has emanated from the Labour Government. They believe in direction and compulsion, as we have seen so often this Session. After introducing the Prices and Incomes Act, Part IV of that Measure was used with great force, although we were told, when the Measure was first introduced, that it would probably not be necesssary. Under this system of Government compulsion, once provided for, is inevitably used. My hon. Friends and I fear that the compulsion provided for in this Clause will also be used if we allow it to be written into the Bill.
We have said from the beginning that the Clause is thoroughly bad in every degree. The Amendment pinpoints the worst aspects of it. Amendment No. 12 is specifically designed to delete the words "or regulation" While we have made it perfectly clear that we are content with any attempt to achieve the better organisation and development of the industry, we must be told what regulations the Government have in mind. We see in the Clause, in only general terms, what sort of regulations the Government have in mind My hon. Friends have referred to subsection (2), with its reference to
… provisions compelling or encouraging the elimination of excess capacity …
and
… provisions compelling or encouraging a reduction in the number of undertakings engaged …


as well as
… provisions requiring permission to be given for the setting up of a new undertaking or the removal of an existing undertaking.
This is direction in its fullest degree. Subsection (6) speaks of
… the imposition of quotas on undertakings or producers or markets …".
Because the word "producers" is brought in in that subsection, the word must mean "farmers". Quotas on farmers are obviously provided for in that provision. Then subsection (8) gives further wide powers
… authorising the Commission to delegate any functions conferred on them by the scheme …
and that power is wide enough for anybody. All these things are provided for by the use of the word "regulation".
However, one of the most damaging powers appears in subsection (9) because, having detailed the specific powers to which I have referred, that provision states:
The generality of the provisions of subsection (1) of this section is not to be read as qualified by or restricted to the particular matters mentioned above in this section.
Those matters are serious enough, but if it goes even further, as we fear it does, then we are right to seek to delete the word "regulation", since it is under that word that we presume that these additional widespread powers can be sought in relation to subsection (9).
It is, therefore, an obnoxious Clause, particularly from the point of view of the harm it could do to any section of the livestock and livestock products industry. It is sweeping and all-embracing and could arbitrarily restrict producers, processors, markets and slaughterhouses. All these matters come within its ambit, and I have not even dealt with the retail side. Apart from all that, it is thoroughly bad legislation. The Minister should be ashamed for having brought to Parliament a Bill of such widespread effect without having even tried to define the purposes for which he wants these powers.
Time and again we have invited the right hon. Gentleman to explain why he wants these powers, but he has been extremely coy. He keeps saying that they are required, but he will go no further. Does he want them to restrict farm pro-

duction? After all, he is doing that in other ways, without having to bother with these powers. He has already created sufficient difficulty. Does he want to restrict the markets? Does he intend to impose these powers on the livestock markets, to compel a certain type of marketing or to get rid of small slaughterhouses? Does he intend to do that? What does he want the powers for? If he does not give us a case for needing these powers, he should not now be seeking to take them.
This is bad legislation irrespective of whether it affects the agricultural industry or any other industry. To ask for blanket powers which have not been shown to be needed is an abuse of the House. It is asking Parliament to vote to the Executive powers that are ill-defined and sweeping, and powers that can by subsection (8) be enlarged. Not only can they be enlarged, but they can be delegated with complete indiscrimination. The Commission can delegate any function conferred on it by the scheme, so we do not know who will have the responsibility of exercising the very wide powers that can be taken in this way.
8.30 p.m.
It is no good the Minister telling us that the position is safeguarded by the approval of Parliament being needed. He knows perfectly well, as I do, that when a scheme is brought forward we have to accept it or reject it in its entirety. We have clearly said that we believe that some functions are right and could be used in a development scheme for better organisation and better development, but it is on "regulation" that we disagree with the Minister.
We therefore say that if he intends merely to bring this scheme forward for rubber-stamp approval—as it amounts to, because we can debate it, but cannot amend it to any degree at all—it is no safeguard at all for Parliament merely to have one discussion and for the thing to go through completely as it is, or to be rejected in its entirety. The right hon. Gentleman knows as well as I do that when the Whips are put on, rejection is a forlorn hope for any Opposition.
We shall therefore be presented with a fait accompli, and the only security is that provided by certain safeguards in the Schedule. That security is not nearly sufficient to give any assurance to those


concerned. As my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) said, if the farmers realised what was being done there would be a far greater outcry. I believe that many of them do not realise the dangers inherent in this Clause, not only for the farmers but for all people connected with the livestock industry.
We have debated this subject at length in Committee and I do not propose to go further with it now, but I want to make it absolutely clear to the Minister that we feel most strongly about it, and that unless he is now willing to give us some accommodation we shall certainly have to register our strong disapproval of what he and the Government are doing.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) has presented the case that he developed in detail in the Standing Committee. He has confined himself to the points of the two Amendments but, basically, he has put forward the same argument, which is that I am seeking to have a Meat Commission with tremendous powers; "Draconian powers" were the strong words used by the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills). We have had a general condemnation of these powers. On the other hand, the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) did not seem to me to share in this extravagant attack that has been made upon me and on the Meat Commission. He admitted that the Commission should have powers.
The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) talked of his youthful past when he had different views. Probably it is because he is getting older that he now takes a different view. I do not know—there may be other reasons. It may be a genuine conversion to a freer concept of agriculture. He talked eloquently of, to quote his words, "a free economy and a desire to have more freedom within the industry." It may well be that he has come to this conclusion—more freedom in a free market economy.
It may well be that he has come finally to the conclusion that we should not have an orderly market; that we should not have import controls. If one accepts the concept of a free market one

must inevitably come up against this problem of the whole concept of standard quantities which my predecessors brought in, and which he supported. The hon. Member may be against support buying. It will be interesting to find that out when we discuss this matter on a future occasion, but I must say that he has changed a lot.
I remind hon. and right hon. Members opposite of a report of Tory Party policy in the Daily Telegraph of 1965—that is not very long ago. It speaks of a new and comprehensive Conservative Party policy for meat marketing. One of the Conservative Front Bench spokesmen on agriculture mentioned this plan, which had been approved by the Agricultural Committee of Conservative back benchers. It would be interesting to know whether the hon. Member for Lowestoft was on that Committee. We were told that the party opposite would set up a new meat marketing authority, and the report mentions powers I am now being attacked for taking by, for example, the hon. Member for Torrington. The Tory Party wanted very strong powers. It said that concentration was necessary and there should be the power to withdraw licences. There was talk about slaughterhouses and the power to provide and supervise wholesale meat markets. Some might be closed and others established. No wonder the hon. Member for Lowestoft wishes to forget his past.

Mr. Peter Mills: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Peart: I was referring to the hon. Member for Lowestoft. I am always courteous. The hon. Member for Lowestoft wished to interrupt, so I shall allow him the opportunity.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman. He has spoken about my forgetting my past or changing my views, but my sins are nothing compared with his. A few years ago the Minister was talking about commodity commissions, strict import controls and meat marketing boards. His right hon. Friend, now the Foreign Secretary, talked about "none of these half-baked things we get from marketing boards nowadays". What does he say about that?

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member knows that I have always believed in orderly


marketing. I have said on many occasions that we need the instruments to achieve it. Later we shall be discussing a very interesting Amendment to be moved by the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) and his colleagues on import controls and the question of where responsibility should lie. I have always looked at the situation pragmatically, even when I may have committed myself to complete commodity commissions. At least the concept of a commission is a step forward. It may be that the concept of import control in relation to the Commission is something which we should argue about on another Amendment.

Mr. Peter Mills: rose—

Mr. Peart: We are getting a little beyond time. This is Report stage and I am trying to answer points which have been put to me by hon. Members opposite. They have argued strongly. I do not complain about that, but they invited me to reply to some main points. They cannot have it both ways. They are suffering from political schizophrenia and are not sure what they want. They say they want orderly marketing. They have not the courage to oppose this Bill. Even when they were in power they did not have the foresight to do something about marketing. They had plenty of opportunities, but they were uncertain.
I shall not abuse hon. Members opposite by using extravagant language, for that can get us nowhere. I have always tried to discuss the issue of Clause 9 objectively. In Committee we discussed it through eight sittings and went into tremendous details. I have tried to explain fully on many occasions why we think this provision necessary and why these Amendments must be resisted and rejected. It is vital that the Commission should be able to cope with future developments in a rapidly changing industry. That is the reply which I have given to the right hon. Member for Grantham on many occasions when he has asked me to be more precise and has talked about the wide powers which I am giving to this body. I have said that it is vital for the Commission to be able to cope with future developments. I have explained why it is necessary to have full powers and why it would be absurd not to provide for all possibilities.
We have gone to considerable lengths to safeguard everyone concerned against abuse of those powers. We have improved the Schedules which we shall be discussing later. There are ample safeguards. This Commission, which is a new venture, should be given powers to do its job. It will be comprised of people connected with all parts of the industry in the structure of the committee system. They will not act rashly or stupidly. They will be sensible men who will prepare schemes, if necessary. In the end it will be for Parliament to approve them. There is that safeguard.
The effect of Amendment No. 11 would be to exclude from the purposes for which the Commission will submit development schemes to Ministers any schemes conducive to the better regulation of any section of the industry. This is the first Amendment in a series designed to reduce the competence of the Commission to deal with future developments in the livestock and livestock products industry. We cannot agree to limit the Clause in the way proposed. We have debated the reasons for this fully.
At the risk of covering some well-trodden ground, I will repeat the reasons why the provision is necessary. Both the structure and the methods of the industries covered by the Bill are changing, from the farm right down to the retail shop. The hon. Members for Lowestoft and North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) correctly said that a tremendous change is taking place in the industry. With the arrival of the Commission and its wide battery of services designed to assist the evolution of the industry, this change can be expected to continue and, perhaps, accelerate. The Bill is intended to provide a basis for central action on behalf of the industry.
The Commission, comprised of men drawn from the industry, will surely act with common sense. Hon. Members should not be suspicious of the responsible men who will be doing this job. The Commission and the industry will have to work together. Inevitably there will be change. They must consider future problems. The Commission must have this power.
In providing for these possibilities, we would be at fault if we did not cater for


eventualities, including the possibility of some regulation of the industry. It may be argued that a regulatory scheme will never be necessary. This may be, but at this stage we cannot know whether it will be necessary. Nobody will use regulatory powers if encouragement is sufficient, if the objective can be achieved by persuasion. We must have powers there in case they are needed. The Commission, Ministers, and Parliament all have to approve the schemes. Surely none of them would agree to any form of compulsion if any other method were sufficient.
Having said that these powers are justified, I must also draw attention to the considerable safeguards against their misuse. Clause 2 provides that there must be full consultation with the interests concerned. Then there must be the publication of a draft scheme and the examination of objections. I could go on repeating all the details, but I could not persuade hon. Members opposite, because they are doctrinal Tory politicians. I forgive them for that. I understand, but cannot accept, their point of view.
The same arguments apply on the other Amendments. I could not convert hon. Members. I have said that I must have these powers for the Commission. I think that they are right. Schemes will inevitably emerge. There may well have to be some rationalisation or concentration in the industry, but it will be for these practical men connected with the industry, not doctrinal opponents of orderly marketing.
8.45 p.m.
I hope that hon. Members will appreciate that we are now trying to create a Commission possessing certain powers, which we give it in this Clause, to do a worth-while job in an industry which has never been properly examined before. There has been plenty of investigation, but nothing was done by my predecessors. We are anxious to do something. In view of the structure of the Commission, the production committee, the representation of the retail and wholesale side of the industry, and also, for the first time, an important consumer committee, we believe that we are taking an important step. I therefore invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: rose—

Hon. Members: Really.

Mr. Stodart: I have listened with great care to every word that the Minister has said, and I think I should be allowed to reply to his speech.
I am staggered by the right hon. Gentleman's slightly ingenuous remark that we on these benches did not have the courage to oppose the Bill as a whole. I do not know whether the right hon. Gentleman was really serious when he said that.
There are, of course, two good things in the Bill, and I was the first to admit it on Second Reading. In fact, I did so on two occasions. We have never had any desire to oppose sound Measures, but the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that under this cover there are five different Bills. When he says that he and his hon. Friends have tried to explain why this Clause has been necessary and that he has done so repeatedly, all I can say is that if these have been genuine attempts—and, for the sake of the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues, I think we should assume that they were not genuine attempts—he and his hon. Friends are quite unworthy of holding their office.
Of course, it is reasonable that we should have orderly marketing. With this, I absolutely agree. It is a fact that as a result of the suggestions made by my hon. Friends during the first sitting of the Committee, the composition of the Commission has been considerably improved. But it is absolute nonsense to ask for powers for this Commission to impose quotas and to remove undertakings within a matter of weeks of the publication of the Government's own plan which called for the expansion of beef production up to the maximum possibilities of technical expansion. These things do not tie up, and the right hon. Gentleman must be aware that they do not. This is a point which has baffled hon. Members. We have asked for explanations, but we have not received any. Time and again the right hon. Gentleman has said that this is a matter that must be left to the Commission. Tonight, he has said that he has tried to explain it. Even these two statements seem to me to be slightly at variance.


I beg the right hon. Gentleman to realise that when he produces a plan of the kind which was produced with a considerable blare of trumpets, in which the need for expansion—selective, I admit—was underwritten in bold lines, and when he then produces a Bill which says that he must call for powers for this body to impose quotas—which, in any case, are the bluntest and most useless of instruments in the fiscal sphere—he cannot but expect the farming community to be, at the least, puzzled, and, at the most, thoroughly suspicious.
The right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have been pleased on several occasions to quote the circular sent round by the National Farmers' Union on Clause 9, but I dare say that it will not have escaped his notice that at the annual

general meeting of the N.F.U. over the present three days there has been the most stringent criticism of the setting up of the Commission.

We have discussed this matter at great length. We were under the impression that we should be able to emphasise the disagreement which we have held from the word "go" upon this Clause in two votes. I understand that that will not be possible, and I therefore wish to make it perfectly clear that when we divide we shall be registering our strongest dissent with the Government on all the Amendments at present under discussion.

Question put, That "and" be there inserted in the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 118, Noes 192.

Division No. 231.]
AYES
[8.54 p.m.


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Onslow, Cranley


Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)
Goodhew, Victor
Osborn, John (Hallam)


Astor, John
Grant, Anthony
Osborne, Sir Cyril (Louth)


Baker, W. H. K.
Gresham Cooke, R.
Pardoe, John


Batsford, Brian
Gurden, Harold
Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)


Bell, Ronald
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Peel, John


Bessell, Peter
Hamilton, Marquess of (Fermanagh)
Pink, R. Bonner


Biffen, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Pounder, Rafton


Black, Sir Cyril
Hawkins, Paul
Prior, J. M, L,


Blaker, Peter
Heseltine, Michael
Pym, Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hill, J, E B
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Brewis, John
Hobson, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Ridsdale, Julian


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Holland, Philip
Roots, William


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hooson, Emlyn
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Bruce-Gardyne, J
Hunt, John
Russell, Sir Ronald


Buchanan-Smith,Alick(Angus, N&amp;M)
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott, Nicholas


Bullus, Sir Eric
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Sharples, Richard


Campbell, Gordon
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Channon, H. P. G.
Kimball, Marcus
Sinclair, Sir George


Chichester-Clark, R.
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Smith, John


Clark, Henry
Kirk, Peter
Stainton, Keith


Clegg, Walter
Kitson, Timothy
Stodart, Anthony


Cooke, Robert
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Summers, Sir Spencer


Cooper-Key, Sir Neill
Lambton, Viscount
Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)


Costain, A. P.
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Teeling, Sir William


Craddock, Sir Beresford (Spelthorne)
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Thorpe, Jeremy


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver
Loveys, W. H.
Tilney, John


Crouch, David
Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.


Dalkeith, Earl of
MacArthur, Ian
Wainwright, Richard(Colne Valley)


Dance, James
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Walker, Peter (Worcester)


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W[...])
Maddan, Martin
Weatherill, Bernard


Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)
Maginnis, John E.
Webster, David


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Maude, Angus
Whitelaw, William


Eden, Sir John
Mawby, Ray
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton)
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Farr, John
Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Forrest, George
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fortescue, Tim
Monro, Hector
Younger, Hn. George


Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Murton, Oscar



Clover, Sir Douglas
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. More and Mr. Eyre.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Bence, Cyril
Boyden, James


Anderson Donald
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Braddock, Mrs. E. M.


Archer, Peter
Bidwell, Sydney
Brooks, Edwin


Armstrong, Ernest
Bishop, E. S.
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Blackburn, F.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Boardman, H.
Brown, Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W)


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Booth, Albert
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Beaney, Alan
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Buchan, Norman




Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Harbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Oram, Albert E.


Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Hilton, W. S.
Orbach, Maurice


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Orme, Stanley


Cant, R. B.
Hooley, Frank
Oswald, Thomas


Carmichael, Neil
Horner, John
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Coe, Denis
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Palmer, Arthur


Coleman, Donald
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Park, Trevor


Concannon, J. D.
Hoy, James
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Conlan, Bernard
Hunter, Adam
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Hynd, John
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Crawshaw, Richard
Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Pentland, Norman


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jackson, Peter M. (High Peak)
Perry, George H. (Nottingham, S.)


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dalyell, Tam
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Price, William (Rugby)


Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)
Judd, Frank
Randall, Harry


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Kenyon, Clifford
Rankin, John


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Redhead, Edward


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Lawson, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey


de Freitas, Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dempsey, James
Ledger, Ron
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Dewar, Donald
Lestor, Miss Joan
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Dickens, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Rose, Paul


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lipton, Marcus
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lomas, Kenneth
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Eadie, Alex
Luard, Evan
Ryan, John


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Sheldon, Robert


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Ellis, John
McBride, Neil
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Ennals, David
McCann, John
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Ensor, David
Macdonald, A. H.
Slater, Joseph


Evans, Albert (Islington, S.W.)
McGuire, Michael
Small, William


Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
Mackie, John
Snow, Julian


Fernyhough, E.
Mackintosh, John P.
Spriggs, Leslie


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Maclennan, Robert
Steele, Thomas(Dunbartonshire,W.)


Fletcher, Raymond (likeston)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Swingler, Stephen


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McNamara, J. Kevin
Thornton, Ernest


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
MacPherson, Malcolm
Tinn, James


Ford, Ben
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Urwin, T. W.


Forrester, John
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Varley, Eric G.


Fowler, Gerry
Manuel, Archie
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Marquand, David
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Gardner, Tony
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Watkins, David (Consett)


Garrett, W. E.
Mendelson, J. J.
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Gregory, Arnold
Millan, Bruce
Wellbeloved, James


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Whitlock, William


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Molloy, William
Wilkins, W. A.


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Hamling, William
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hannan, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Harper, Joseph
Moyle, Roland
Winnick, David


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Winterbottom, R. E.


Hart, Mrs. Judith
Murray, Albert



Haseldine, Norman
Newens, Stan
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Hazell, Bert
Oakes, Gordon
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. Howie.


Heffer, Eric S.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 9, line 41, at end to insert:
', not excluding methods of import regulation '.
I find myself partly in agreement with much that was said by hon. Members on this side of the House in the debates on the last two or three Amendments in relation to the excessive powers being given to the Commission. But, at the same time, I could not quite follow the extreme disaffection shown by some of them with the word "regulation". Many of them have served under Queen's Regulations at one time or another and I cannot see why they should be so concerned about the word.
The case for the Amendment is clear. If we are to give excessive powers to the Meat Marketing Commission we have to give them complete powers but one is missing from this Clause—the power to regulate imports. Clause 9 says
…for the purpose of conducing to the better organisation, development or regulation of any section of the livestock industry …
To me, this is obviously incomplete without the inclusion of import regulation of the particular livestock product concerned.
An example of this is the chaotic situation in the bacon industry, due largely to the fact that the Pig Industry Development Authority, to be superseded by the Commission, has had little


to say on the marketing side and no influence at all on the level of imports —a mater which has been entirely at the mercy of the Government, mainly because of the late Conservative Government's bacon market sharing agreement with Denmark and other countries, which was a quota system if ever there was one.
I do not want to delay the House on this Amendment, which is simple and straightforward. If we are to give powers to the Commission they must be complete and must include power to regulate imports. I should like the Minister's assurance that the Commission will be given a say in the level of imports of each commodity it is responsible for and I hope the opportunity will be used to move closer to the E.E.C's system of market management by target prices, import regulation and support buying where necessary.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) has, I presume, moved the Amendment with the official backing of his party. I was rather surprised that he mentioned his agreement with the Opposition on previous Amendments. I thought that he was much too reasonable a person to be attracted to that sort of attack on the powers given to the Commission.

Mr. James Davidson: rose—

Mr. Peart: It is a bit early yet to give way.

Mr. Davidson: It is about the phrase which the right hon. Gentleman has just used.

Mr. Peart: I will not listen to debating points. The hon. Gentleman can return to this if he likes.
Then he chided the Opposition for introducing import quota arrangements and referred to the bacon market sharing agreement introduced by my predecessor in the Conservative Government. The bacon market sharing agreement was not attacked by Liberal Members when it was introduced. The Liberal Party may have changed its mind, but I cannot remember that in all our debates representatives of the Liberal Party in the House attacked the bacon market sharing agreement. If I am wrong, I will apologise, but I do not think that I am.
This Amendment could raise an extremely interesting debate, but I must say at once that the Government's view is that the Commission should not be given power to control imports. Whether there should be any such control and, if so, what form it should take is and must remain a matter for decision by the Government of the day. After all, this is an important decision, for it involves our international arrangements, as has been said. Several commodities might be referred to, but the bacon market sharing agreement is a very good example. This question involves matters of commercial policy and of our international obligations in the trade field.
I have concluded that at this stage it is right that the Government should keep this power, with its tremendous implications, in their own hands. These are properly matters for the Government to decide. No doubt the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) will make a speech about my concept of the Commodity Commission.
I have carefully studied the Amendment, in view of our international agreements, and I think that it is right that we should make this decision. These are considerations which any Government would be bound to have in mind if the Commission submitted a scheme likely to affect imports. We could not accept the Amendment, which might be thought to endorse the view that the function of regulating imports might be given in some form to the Commission, and I therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Prior: There were two sentences in the right hon. Gentleman's speech which entertained me. First, he said that the Government were right to make "this decision". What decision? I presume the decision not to make a decision; in other words, a decision not to have any import control.

Mr. Peart: The decision to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Prior: What the right hon. Gentleman is saying is that the Government are not prepared to take control over imports. I agree that they are right not to leave that to the Commission, because such control must be a job for the Government, and I think that the Liberals would agree,


but what we would like is the Minister's view about whether the Government should take power to have import control, and we have not had that view.
If he does not agree with this now, he is going back a good deal upon what he said only a few years ago, when he was all in favour of import controls. The Minister is again years out of date. Where he is wrong and hypocritical over this issue is that he is telling farmers at home to increase their beef production—granted ever since he said this beef production has very largely fallen—but he is trying to give the impression that he wants more beef at home. If we are to have more beef at home we have to accept some control over imports, or else we will be faced with the situation where imports can come in freely. We shall have greater production at home and we shall be faced with an enormous deficiency payments bill.

Mr. John Mackie: And we might eat more meat, as well.

Mr. Prior: I sincerely hope that we do eat more meat.
One of the points of this Amendment is to try and help the balance of payments position. If one looks round the world it will be seen that the nations with whom we have the biggest adverse balance of payments are almost always those supplying us with a great deal of food. The Argentine and beef is the classic example.
I do not believe that we should lose any export trade with the Argentine if we had the courage to put on these controls. The logic of what the Prime Minister has said, and what the right hon. Gentleman has said at various times when talking about agriculture as an import-saving industry, with a great part to play, is that he should be prepared to adopt some form of import control and that the Minister should come along tonight and say that not only does he think that the Government should keep this decision to itself, with which I agree, but that they are not going to make any decision on this. He has rigidly refused to say whether he accepts import control as a facet of import policy. This is quite appalling.
There cannot be any real confidence in agriculture until we accept this, and this is why my party has changed its agricul-

tural policy during the last two years and why we fought the last election on this very basis. As more and more people, not only farmers, come to understand this they will support us. The equivocal attitude of the Minister tonight gives no one any confidence.

Mr. Godber: I endorse every word said by my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), and I am very glad that he has said them. I agree with the Minister that it is not right to give these powers to the Commission. To that extent I could not support the Amendment, but I appreciate that this was the only way in which the matter could be raised. Like my hon. Friend, I was distinctly disappointed with the reply given by the Minister. There is no doubt that in the changing circumstances of today a greater degree of import control has to be considered and acted on, whether or not we enter the Common Market. This is something the Minister has to face up to, particularly in regard to beef.
If the right hon. Gentleman has not learned anything else from what has happened over the last 12 months he must surely have learned the folly of adopting a position whereby, through the imposition of large levies by Common Market countries, there is a diversion on to our market which depresses the trade, not only for the finished product, but which destroys confidence on the production side of the industry and falls very harshly upon those in the rearing section. It is all very well for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to say that this might attract more people to eat more meat. These are the people who have been hard hit. Those selling the finished product have had a tight and difficult time but those in the rearing and livestock growing areas have had a deplorable time, as the Minister must know.
Therefore, although I would agree with the Minister that he cannot accept the Amendment, I am surprised that he did not take the opportunity to say something far more positive and encouraging to the farming community. If the Minister had wanted to do so, he could have used some words which would have given much greater encouragement, particularly when his right hon. Friends in Rome are saying some very different things today. The Sun carries the headline
Wilson's 'Yes' to Europe on Food".


It is clear that some of the Minister's right hon. Friends are not afraid of saying things in relation to a changed attitude. I hope that the Minister will be much more positive about his attitude, because no one has been more equivocal on this issue than he has.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I endorse what has been said by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) and my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) about the control of imports in relation to the economic position. I wish to devote my remarks to the question of marketing, which is the crux of this Amendment.
The lack of control and regulation of imports gives the farming community and all concerned with meat marketing a feeling of frustration and helplessness. Any efforts which they make to become more efficient and to rationalise the marketing system are so often lost through lack of control and regulation of imports. We saw this particularly last summer and autumn in relation to meat from Eire. We have seen it regularly in relation to the import of cheap eggs from Poland and other Iron Curtain countries, and in relation to the fatstock marketing scheme where the system of abatements has completely broken down. Producers cannot see how they can influence the bringing about of orderly marketing because of what comes from overseas.
This is a problem which will increase as time goes on, particularly if we are outside the Common Market. Not only are we accepting cheap imports from other countries outside Europe, but increasingly we shall have to become the dustbin for subsidised food surpluses from Europe. I remind the Minister that Common Market countries are subsidising exports of dairy produce at the rate of £60 million a year. Where will these exports go—to Britain, the one country which is accepting quite freely the entry of this type of subsidised food.
There is a need for regulation not only in these wider spheres but in relation to the marketing boards. One of the most successful boards in marketing is the Milk Marketing Board in the liquid milk market because it has not had to contend with the upsetting influence of imports over which it has no control. It is the

one commodity from farms in this country which has not the problem of competing with the same article from elsewhere. The Potato Marketing Board and the Egg Marketing Board have done great work in improving the marketing of their produce and bringing about co-operation among producers. Yet often their efforts and work have been completely nullified by imports from abroad over which they have no control whatever.
I appreciate that it is difficult for the Minister to give the Commission power to control imports. I believe that the authority and responsibility for this should rest with the Minister. My only disappointment is that he has not exercised that authority strongly enough. I am disappointed that there is nothing specific written in the Bill to give the Commission power to advise the Minister. For that reason, I am glad that the Amendment has been brought forward.

Mr. John Pardoe: I cannot understand why there is misunderstanding on both sides of the House about the meaning of this simple and clear Amendment. There is no question of taking away from the Government powers which, obviously, they must have. All the Amendment provides is that the Commission may submit to the Ministers a scheme not excluding the regulation of imports.
Presumably, the logic of the Minister's argument is that any scheme that is submitted under this Clause must automatically become Government policy. In fact, the Commission is there to advise the Government, to submit a scheme. The Government could say nay or yea, and there is no question of giving the Commission powers which the Government should rightly have themselves.
The Commission is there to inject sanity into an insane meat marketing world. The greatest agent contributing to insanity in meat marketing is unregulated imports. Therefore, it would be ridiculous to tell the Commission, "You are there to bring sanity into this situation, but you are specifically excluded from recommending to us the most important thing that you will have to deal with". I hope that my hon. Friend will not withdraw this Amendment, but will press it to a vote.

Mr. Henry Clark: The House owes a considerable debt to the


hon. Members who raised this Amendment because it gives us an opportunity to discuss the question of imports of beef, a vital question at the moment.
I believe that the Commission should be given powers to make recommendations to the Minister on the question of the control of imports. The Minister has made quite clear that he himself will not consider controls on imports or, perhaps, will neglect them. If he will not do it, then the Commission certainly must.
We have had a classic example in the last 18 months of complete failure to control imports in a situation in which we had every opportunity for controlling them. The Minister will have no doubt that I am referring to imports of beef from Southern Ireland. This is a classic case where controls should have been applied. Any Commission knowing its job would have made recommendations to the Minister, whether or not the Bill empowered it to do so.
We had, just over a year ago, two factors which gave Southern Ireland an edge in the export of dead meat over the meat plants buying in the same markets in my own constituency and throughout Northern Ireland. We had, first, the 2 per cent. export rebate, which meant that one could deliver a beef animal to a meat plant in Dublin, collect the export rebate, and sell it cheaper than one could deliver that same beast from a market in Northern Ireland to an Ulster meat packing firm. Then we had the poundage payment which the Southern Ireland Government made on every pound of export beef, which continued until July of this year.
Those two factors gave Southern Irish meat packing plants an edge of perhaps 1d. or 2d. per 1b. over meat packing firms in Northern Ireland. This will very nearly drive several of these meat packing firms into liquidation and will create considerable unemployment. It arises from the lack of control by the Minister over imports into this country. He had the perfect opportunity to control these imports when, just over a year ago, we signed the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement. We agreed to pay our British subsidy on 25,000 tons of Southern Irish beef. In other words, we would pay their subsidy for them. It has been seen already that the Southern Irish will always send

us that 25,000 tons of beef when prices are at their very lowest.
That was one factor that the Minister did not consider when that Agreement was signed. It would seem quite incredible, if one did not know something about those negotiations, that we should have agreed to pay that huge sum of money to pay the Southern Irish subsidy for them without at the same time negotiating for a degree of control over the rate at which Southern Ireland could send its cattle to us. When the history of this matter is written, the public will know just what happened when the Southern Irish were over here and the trade negotiations were going on. We know from very reliable evidence that there was pressure from the Prime Minister himself. In fact, one hears of direct personal intervention by the Prime Minister to have the trade agreement signed for purely party political purposes.

Mr. Peart: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I have your guidance? Attacks are being made on the Prime Minister and the extent of the debate has been widened. If this continues, will we be in order in replying to these unfounded charges?

Mr. Speaker: It will be quite in order for the right hon. Gentleman to reply to the charges, but what the hon. Gentleman has said so far is linked to the Amendment.

Mr. Clark: I shall be delighted to hear the right hon. Gentleman's reply when the time comes. All the evidence points to the agreement having been signed in a hurry to placate the large number of people who have come here from Southern Ireland and who are now resident and qualified to vote in the United Kingdom. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Peart: How silly can the hon Gentleman get?

Mr. Clark: We have this occasion when beef imports should have been controlled. An opportunity was given to the Minister to control them, but he failed to put his views to the Board of Trade when the negotiations were going on. As I said at the outset, if the Minister will not consider these matters, any Commission in its right mind certainly ought to do so.
There is a disastrous situation in the Northern Ireland beef industry, which is


being outbid now by up to 2d. a lb. A report has just been made to the Minister of Agriculture in Northern Ireland—if this Minister has not seen it, he can certainly obtain a copy—outlining the true facts of the case. That report makes clear that the failure of his Ministry to negotiate any controls in the Anglo-Irish trade agreement has led almost inevitably to redundancy and, perhaps, closure of meat packing factories in Northern Ireland. This is why I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment.

Mr. W. E. Garrett: I have heard my right hon. Friend speak on this subject in Committee, and now we have the same useless diatribe as we had before from the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark). By making remarks of that kind, the hon. Gentleman admits the inadequate outlook of Northern Ireland farmers towards their own industry. It is no good blaming the Ministry of Agriculture for their troubles.
The hon. Gentleman has widened the scope of the debate. If he wishes to pursue the matter, I could take it further, Mr. Speaker, with your leave, and argue truthfully about the situation of Southern Irish farmers vis-àvis the farmers of Northern Ireland. The issue is one of efficiency in Southern Ireland and inefficiency in Northern Ireland. [HON. MEMBERS "No."] Of course it is.

Mr. Henry Clark: If I may be allowed—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak, but he may intervene, if he wishes, before the hon. Gentleman sits down. However, I gather that his opportunity has passed and that the hon. Gentleman has sat down.

Mr. Peart: If I may have leave to speak again, I need not bother to reply at length because the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), in his excitement, has exaggerated the whole case. He ought to know that the Anglo-Irish Trade Agreement was not rushed. There was careful study conducted by both officials and Ministers. I regard it as a very good agreement. It was not done to placate Irish people in this country.
The hon. Gentleman is being offensive to many worthy Irish citizens in this country, people whom we need over here and whom I am glad continually to praise. I should hate it if wé were to look at them in any different light. I hope that we shall always look with favourable regard at our Southern Irish friends who come to stay here and become good citizens. We are anxious to have good relations with Southern and Northern Ireland. Speeches of the kind made by the hon. Member create the awful bigotry that we want to end.

Mr. Henry Clark: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is not the hon. Member's Amendment. He has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Clark: With the leave of the House—

Hon. Members: No.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak. He cannot speak again without the leave of the House.

Question put, That those words be there inserted in the Bill:—

The House divided: Ayes 10, Noes 162.

Division No. 232.]
AYES
[9.33 p.m.


Davidson, James(Aberdeenshire, W.)
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross&amp;Crom'ty)
Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)


Hooson, Emlyn
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Winstanley, Dr. M. P.


Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Thorpe, Jeremy



Lubbock, Eric
Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:




Mr. Pardoe and Mr. Bessell.




NOES


Allen, Scholefield
Blackburn, F.
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)


Archer, Peter
Boardman, H.
Buchan, Norman


Armstrong, Ernest
Booth, Albert
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)


Atkins, Ronald (Preston, N.)
Boyden, James
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)


Atkinson, Norman (Tottenham)
Braddock, Mrs, E. M.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)


Beaney, Alan
Brooks, Edwin
Carmichael, Neil


Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Coleman, Donald


Bidwell, Sydney
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Concannon, J, D.


Bishop, E. S.
Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Conlan, Bernard




Corbet, Mrs. Freda
Howie, W.
Owen, Will (Morpeth)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Hoy, James
Palmer, Arthur


Cullen, Mrs. Alice
Hynd, John
Park, Trevor


Dalyell, Tam
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)


Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull. W.)
Pavitt, Laurence


Davies, Harold (Leek)
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Pearson, Arthur (Pontypridd)


Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Kenyon, Clifford
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Davies, Robert (Cambridge)
Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)


Dempsey, James
Lawson, George
Price, Thomas (Westhoughton)


Dewar, Donald
Leadbitter, Ted
Randall, Harry


Dickens, James
Lestor, Miss Joan
Rankin, John


Dunnett, Jack
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th &amp; C'b'e)
Lipton, Marcus
Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)


Eadie, Alex
Lomas, Kenneth
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Edwards, Robert (Briston)
Luard, Evan
Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Rose, Paul


Ellis, John
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William


Ennals, David
McBride, Neil
Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)


Ensor, David
McCann, John
Sheldon, Robert


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
Macdonald, A. H.
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Evans, Ioan L, (Birm'h'm, Yardley)
McGuire, Michael
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


Fernyhough, E.
Mackie, John
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mackintosh, John P.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Maclennan, Robert
Slater, Joseph


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Small, William


Foot, Michael (Ebbw Vale)
Mc.Namara, J. Kevin
Spriggs, Leslie


Fowler, Gerry
MacPherson, Malcolm
Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire,W.)


Fraser, Rt. Hn. Tom (Hamilton)
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)
Swingler, Stephen


Gardner, Tony
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Thornton, Ernest


Garrett, W. E
Manuel, Archie
Tinn, James


Gregory, Arnold
Marquand, David
Urwin, T. W.


Grey, Charles (Durham)
Mendelson, J. J.
Varley, Eric G.


Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.)
Millan, Bruce
Walden, Brian (All Saints)


Hannan, William
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Harper, Joseph
Molloy, William
Watkins, Tudor (Brecon &amp; Radnor)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Wellbeloved, James


Haseldine, Norman
Moyle, Roland
Whitlock, William


Hazell, Bert
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)


Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Murray, Albert
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)


Hilton, W. S.
Newens, Stan
Willis, George (Edinburgh, E.)


Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town)
Oakes, Gordon
Winnick, David


Hooley, Frank
Oram, Albert E.
Winterbottom, R. E.


Horner, John
Orme, Stanley



Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Oswald, Thomas
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Mr. Gourlay and Mr. Charles R. Morris

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 10, line 9, to leave out "removal" and to insert "relocation".
Hon. Members will recall that when we discussed the Clause in Committee I promised the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) that I would look at the wording of subsection (2,c) to see whether it would be possible to clarify the meaning of the word "removal". I regret that the hon. Member for Clitheroe is not in his place. I have examined the matter. I explained in Committee that the word meant "re-location" in the sense that a development scheme could provide that permission would he required for an existing undertaking to be set up elsewhere. It was not concerned with undertakings which were closing down altogether. I am advised that there is no objection to simply substituting the word "relocation" for "removal" I hope that, with that explanation, the Amendment will be accepted.

Mr. Stodart: As one who took part in that discussion I thank the Minister for accepting, by this Amendment, my hon. Friend's suggestion.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No 19, in page 11, line 23, at the end to insert:
(h) authorising appropriate advertising campaigns.
Further to the point I made in proposing Amendment No. 13, I am amazed that after the passionate words spoken from the Conservative benches about import regulation, very few on this side apart from the Liberal Members saw fit to support that Amendment. I trust that the farming community will note that the Conservative Party has—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must come to his Amendment.

Mr. Davidson: I was just coming to it, Mr. Speaker. It is really a continuation of Amendment No. 13.
We believe that advertising is an absolutely essential part of any scheme to develop a particular section of the livestock or livestock products industries. If, for example, under the terms of this Clause was decided to develop the sales of Scotch beef in Scandinavia, it would seem not only appropriate but essential to enable the Commission to spend money on an appropriate advertising campaign. The Amendment seeks to give the Commission power to include such proposals in any scheme that it submits.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) is anxious to make certain that the Commission does certain things, and here we are dealing with advertising campaigns. His purpose is to make sure that, within the competence of a development scheme made under the Clause, an appropriate advertising campaign could be authorised.
I draw the hon. Member's attention to paragraph 15 in Part I of Schedule 1 which specifically empowers the Commission to promote or undertake
…arrangements for advertising the merits, and increasing the sales…of livestock and livestock products produced in Great Britain.
I should have thought that such a provision satisfactorily met the purpose of the Amendment. The hon. Member may think that there could be additional aspects of advertising campaigns that could be authorised in a development scheme under the Clause which are not authorised under Schedule 1, but I am advised that it is not necessary to amend the Bill for that purpose.
I hope that I have indicated that, even under this Clause, we can do all that the hon. Member seeks. Subsection (9) makes it clear that the examples specified in subsections (2) to (8) are not to be read restrictively. The authorisation of appropriate advertising campaigns would be well within the provisions of subsection (I). I hope the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West, who moved the Amendment partly as a probing process, will accept my explanation.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds): Will the Minister confirm that the powers he referred to extend to

advertising abroad as well as in this country?

Mr. Peart: indicated assent.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 10.—(CALF SUBSIDY SCHEMES.)

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 13, line 16 at the end to insert:
(7) A scheme under the said Act may provide for supplementary payment to be made in respect of calves reared on grass in accordance with conditions specified in the scheme.
I move this Amendment with some trepidation among so many agricultural experts. It is now many years since the last calf grazed in Wood Green, although until quite recently we had a very flourishing pig farm there. It was established to consume the famous "Tottenham Pudding" which was processed by Tottenham Council from kitchen waste.
The purpose of this Amendment is twofold. The first reason for it is to my mind much the more important. Rightly or wrongly there is great public concern about recent trends in farming towards intensive methods of keeping animals. The Amendment is designed to try a little to reverse that trend and to encourage farmers increasingly to use grazing for their calves. Public concern was expressed in a great deal of comment which led to the setting up of the Brambell Committee and its Report.
A great many people are desirous of eating only meat produced by open grazing methods. There are great difficulties, but the Ministry of Agriculture has itself consistently advocated a policy of earlier turnout for calves to grazing. I have with me a publication issued by the Ministry at the Royal Dairy Show in 1965. It is entitled "Calf Rearing; Use Grass—Cut Costs". The arguments put forward in this pamphlet amply support the Amendment. One of the important points stressed by the Ministry in advocating an earlier turnout to grass is that the health of calves so turned out is extremely good.
The public is very much concerned that the meat they eat shall have been produced in the healthiest way possible. This seems desirable from the point of view of the health and wellbeing both of the animals and of the consumer, who too often is overlooked in debates on


agriculture, and in consideration of agricultural methods. The Minister points out that if calves are turned out to grass earlier than normal a reduction in the cost of food amounting to between 30s. and 90s. per calf, depending on the earliness of the turnout is secured, less rearing accommodation is required because pens can be rested during the spring and summer, and labour is also saved.
With all these advantages it may be wondered why calves are not turned out earlier and why grazing of calves is not more frequent. Some farmers here may suggest that all this is already done. If it is done, there was no justification for producing this brochure and others like it. I know that many farmers have been sceptical when asked to use more open grazing methods for calves.
I believe that in agriculture it is easier to follow the trend than to try to reverse it, as the Amendment seeks to do, and that every encouragement should be given to farmers who want to reverse the trend away from intensive farming. At present, the subsidy arrangements favour indoor feeding and handicap grazing. Subsidies are liberal to all major farming activities, except to grazing. Since rents are high in farming, this is an additional difficulty with regard to the grazing of calves and other animals.
For this reason, I believe that an additional incentive is needed to encourage farmers to undertake more grazing. I believe that an assured subsidy is a greater incentive than a probable economy. The Amendment would give grazing its due share of public financial support. This need not mean any overall increase in the Government's payment to agriculture. The scheme could be financed either from the fertiliser fund or from the cattle and calf appropriation.
Enforcement would not be difficult. It would be just as easy for certifying officers to visit farms to supervise a scheme of this kind as to supervise other calf subsidy arrangements, as they ordinarily visit farms in spring and early summer in any case. The machinery could be simple and a farmer wishing to make a claim for subsidy under the Amendment in respect of calves turned out to grass in early spring would obtain a form on which he would enter the number of calves to

be grazed and describe them in the manner indicated on the appropriate form. He could show on a map the field they would occupy and the date of intended occupation and submit this form to the division executive officer. He would follow this with a regular report showing for each day the number of calves grazed and the hours they spent in the field. [Laughter.] This may sound fantastic, but it is not. It is a routine thing which could easily be done. This is the view of a number of agricultural experts. I am merely trying to point out that this is not an impossible scheme. It is perfectly practicable.
Subsidy would be paid only in respect of grazing notified in advance and this would make checking comparatively easy. Claims for payment would be made to the divisional executive officer and the inspection of fields would be carried out by the calf certifying officer, as with other calf certifying arrangements. Measures for ensuring payment in proper cases only are already provided in Clause 11, in particular subsection (1,c), which would make possible the authorising of inspection of farm fields by appointed officers.
The Minister has already made clear his interest in the welfare of farm animals and his desire at some stage to introduce legislation to implement the recommendations of the Brambell Report and other farm welfare provisions. However, we do not know when this will be. We may have to wait a considerable time for it, and in the meantime the Bill is before us. This would seem to be a very good opportunity for inserting this small Amendment and, although hon. Members may criticise some of the practical details that I have mentioned, I am sure that they cannot criticise the importance of extending the grazing of calves which is already recognised as being a good and an economic thing and going some way towards meeting public concern about intensive farming in this very small respect. It does not begin to cover the whole field, but it does a small and useful job.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment, will try it out in practice and will see whether he can make a success of what I believe to be a beneficial scheme to farmers and to consumers, and indeed to the animals concerned.

Sir Frank Pearson: While I could not go the whole way in supporting the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) in the details of her proposals, I would go most of the way with her in accepting the principle that we should give every possible encouragement to the natural rearing and production of stock and that we should be very careful indeed about the conditions under which we allow the intensive production of stock to be carried on. I felt at one time, when the hon. Lady was outlining the procedures that should be gone through in order to pay this additional subsidy, that, in the end, it might well be the farmer himself, rather than the stock, who was going to be certified. I would wish to avoid that particular difficulty.
This question of the intensive rearing of stock is one which the Minister should certainly look at again. We have today a great spread of the system of beef production that is known as the production of barley beef. So far as I can understand it, beef reared under this system consume nearly as much drugs and chemicals as they consume natural food. [Laughter.] Oh yes, that is a fact. The same applies to sheep production. We are now entering a stage when many flocks of ewes will be kept intensively, on wooden laths, in a very confined space. The amount of drugs that have to be given to these animals to keep them in a reasonably healthy condition throughout the winter is very considerable.
Quite apart from the question of the more humanitarian approach to the production of these animals, I would rather approach this matter purely from the point of view of hard commercial interest. Hard commercial interest has always appealed very much not only to the farmers, but also to the general public. I should like to pose this question to the Minister. If we really are to encourage what financially may be seen to be the most economic methods of production, shall we in the end produce the quality and type of product that is best for people to eat?
There is another question. Is it really in the national interest that these young cattle which are put through the barley beef process should be slaughtered at so low a weight as 7½ cwt.? Would it

not be better that they should be run on to a somewhat heavier weight on pasture to produce a more mature product that at any rate has some taste, which is more than can be said for the average barley beef, that spongy article that tastes of a cross between a sponge and a piece of lemon cake?
Purely from the commercial angle, there is a case for saying that we should carefully consider to what extent the Commission will encourage the intensive production of meat products. I sincerely hope that when the Minister advises the Commission he will ask it to consider carefully the economics of intensive beef production, because if this process is extended and carried on we shall find ourselves—

It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

Ordered,
That the Proceedings on the Agriculture Bill may be entered upon and proceeded with at this day's Sitting at any hour, though opposed. —[Mr. Charles R. Morris.]

Question again proposed, That the proposed words be there inserted in the Bill.

Sir Frank Pearson: The question of intensive beef production must be very carefully considered, because if we allow excessive pressure on the farmer to dictate that production we may well find that the acreage we have available for pasturing cannot be used fully and economically.
There is the question of the lightweight and the heavyweight beast. It would be simple for the Minister so to arrange his guaranteed payments that more encouragement was given to the production of heavyweight beef. That would be fair and would be the simplest method of achieving the object of the hon. Member for Wood Green.
I do not believe that there is any necessity for an Amendment in the terms she has put forward. But the principle she put before the House is valid, and the Minister should be urged, in the interests of the country and of healthy stock production, that weighting should be given for the heavier beast, the beast that has had to be reared and brought up on grass, when he considers his guaranteed payments at the annual Price Review. If he will only do that, the


hon. Lady's point would be met in large measure.
It is because we have had an accent on the smaller animal, the smaller joint, for a number of years, and because the whole of the guaranteed payment structure has been pitched to encourage the production of that kind of joint that we are being forced into intensive production of animal products. I believe that this can only go so far and I therefore ask the Minister, although he may not be able to accept the Amendment, to consider carefully his structure of prices and through that structure to encourage the production of the larger, more mature beast, which in the end will produce the best meat and the best food for the public.

Mr. John Rankin: We have sometimes heard that a prophet is never without honour have in his own country. As I listened to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) making his valuable and interesting speech, and the somewhat careless laughter that accompanied it at one point, I was reminded that he was not getting the honour he deserved on his side of the House. He said that he agreed with the principles of the Amendment. We accept that. It is a most valuable contribution. If we are agreed on the principles, then the details can be worked out by agreement.
What is important is that from the other side of the House we now have the assurance that the principle in the Amendment is accepted by one hon. Member, and I hope that in due course other hon. Gentlemen opposite will say that they accept that principle and also the particular principle that we want to build the heavyweight beast and not the lightweight beast that is built on drugs.
I said this in the House years ago, and it was not disputed then. The proof that has come from American research into intensive breeding has never been disputed. The figures were quoted here when the Conservative Party was in power, and its Ministers did not dispute the statistics because they are beyond dispute.
An animal fed on grass flourishes infinitely better as a beef-producing source than an animal fed largely with the aid

of drugs. That is beyond argument, and I am sure that it is accepted on both sides of the House. [Interruption.] I am sorry if my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. John Mackie) is suggesting that he does not accept that. He is a farmer, and a good one, one of the best farmers on the Government Front Bench; but I do not think anyone would dispute that.
The other aspect of the problem is that the intensive farming of calves—here we are limited to calves and cannot expand the argument beyond them—has produced a serious public reaction. Articles have appeared in books showing what intensive rearing means to the calf. The natural way for an animal to grow is outside, eating its natural nutriment, which is grass.

Mr. Jopling: The hon. Gentleman says that the best environment for a young animal is outside eating grass. At this time of the year the best place for a young animal is inside, where there is warmth, and where it can eat perfectly natural foods which have been preserved in the summer season for the winter period.

Mr. Rankin: Of course, it depends where one lives. If he had been with me last week in the South of France, seeing a great aircraft taking shape, the hon. Gentleman would have seen the snow that abounded there and would have realised that not only animals but human beings want to get inside. It depends on the environment of the animal. The young animal wants the comfort of its mother. That is where its natural heat and food come from until it is able to fend for itself. That is what all creatures want.
Now there is this revulsion because these conditions are being violated and these animals do not, as has been said, produce food of the best quality needed in order to rear a growing and expanding population. Thus, the Amendment becomes important because what we are proposing is a calf grazing subsidy. There is nothing funny in that, is there? Is there an objection to a calf grazing subsidy from the farming community? [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Why? I hope that those who object will in due course tell us why they object to subsidies.
The farmers have lived with subsidies most of the years I have been in this House. Farming life has been revolutionised by subsidies, especially in milk production. [HON. MEMBERS: "There is no subsidy for that."] No subsidies for milk production? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is nonsense. Let us take the example of the farmer on the Isle of Arran who used to go round selling his milk from a cart. Now he has it collected at the end of the road and taken away for marketing. He does not need a cart and horse to go round now and every month he gets from the Milk Marketing Board a cheque which varies from £50 to 150 a month.

Sir Frank Pearson: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Before the hon. Gentleman seeks to reply to an interruption we must get back to the Amendment.

Mr. Rankin: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I must not yield to temptation. But it is true that these changes have taken place in the level of subsistence of the farming community. The hon. Member for Clitheroe can shake his head in any direction, but what I am saying is still true.
I am coming to the proposal for a calf grazing subsidy. No farmer can honestly say that he opposes subsidy. I see no dissent from that. The farmer does not oppose subsidies for raising certain animals so he will not object to a subsidy under this proposal. He will accept the fact that it will apply to calves. He will not refuse it.
The only point at which the farmer may have difficulty in accepting the proposal concerns whether the calf is to grow up by grazing or by being kept inside some container, large or small. That is where the objection takes root. Does the farmer want to keep the calf inside or let it out to graze? That is the issue. As has been said, there is no principle involved in that—it is a matter of detail. Different subsidies are paid for steer cafes and heifer calves whether raised on grass or by intensive farming methods. Would it be wrong to suggest that we should pay a little more to the farmer who raises his calves on grass and not by intensive methods?
10.15 p.m.
That is the only difference between us on this issue. I do not know whether my right hon. Friend or my hon. Friend agrees with me, but I suggest on my own responsibility that the idea would be made a little more palatable to those farmers who say that it is cheaper to raise animals by intensive methods if the Government were prepared to pay a little more in respect of the calf raised outside than for the calf raised mostly inside. I know that calves raised by intensive methods go out to grass for periods, but they are generally raised inside, and to encourage outside rearing we should pay a slightly higher subsidy for calves reared on grass.
I know that my hon. Friend is a humane farmer and from every point of view, the humane, the wise, the human and the animal's point of view, I hope that the House will impress on the Government the need to do something about the problem of how we raise animals to provide food for ourselves.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough): All of us on both sides of the House respect the efforts of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) to ensure that the housewife gets the very best food available without its being adulterated by modern chemicals, but I doubt whether she realises that in her Amendment she has produced probably the greatest indictment of the present Government for a long time, namely, their total failure to do anything to ensure that the livestock rearing side of farming, and in particular people who are still graziers, are ensured a proper, profitable return.
My hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) made it perfectly clear that the whole of the barley-beef system is now very much in question. It is dubiously profitable and the housewife is not prepared to buy the meat with rather nasty yellow fat which comes from this system. The barley-beef system is dying because it lacks any merits of its own.
But I could not support the hon. Lady if she took the Amendment to a Division, because she has produced an extremely complicated scheme by which a farmer would have to certify that the calves had gone out to natural grass and natural grazing for so many hours of the day, every day of the week. I see that the


right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland has fled from his place. He must realise the great difficulty which his civil servants have with the Winter Keep Scheme. Under the Winter Keep Scheme a farmer has to certify on 15th October that he has not used any of his kale or rape to start feeding his store lambs before 15th October. It takes the whole of the inspectorate the whole of the summer to ensure that that one provision is properly administered.
How the hon. Lady expects the Ministry of Agriculture's inspectors to ensure that people throughout the whole of the United Kingdom are fulfilling the conditions of this excellent scheme I do not understand. She failed to convince the House in her speech. We all respect the hon. Lady's sincerity but I doubt if there are many green pastures left in Wood Green—the hon. Lady would not be in this House at the moment if there were.
All of us would like to see the livestock rearing side of the industry made more profitable and see the Government change the emphasis on the subsidy system so that grass once more became a profitable crop. This is what we are suffering from at the moment. This is what we expect to see put right in the forthcoming Price Review. However admirable the hon. Lady's sentiments may be, the practical administration of them does not seem to be profitable. She has also totally failed to persuade the Joint Parliamentary Secretary and others in his Ministry to do anything to make grass a profitable crop.

Mr. Alasdair Mackenzie: This has been a very interesting debate, and we all agree that there is a lot to be said for the views expressed by the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler). However, to anyone with a knowledge of stock rearing it is quite clear that there are many practical difficulties. It is out of place to suggest that calves would live on grass outside all the year round. There comes a time when the grass gets bare and the calves go inside because young stock will not thrive on bare pasture, and they would be unsuitable for sale.
Stock rearers in general are convinced that the public want something brought up in a natural way and this is what most farmers do. Most of us still rear cattle under pretty natural conditions. Barley beef is an entirely different matter, and this is no doubt what the hon. Lady has in mind, along with the hon. Members for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) and Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin).
We should make a distinction between stock reared under natural conditions outside and then put inside and the barley-beef stock, raised under unnatural conditions. With these varying feed lots it has been found that they need a good deal of drugs. There is much to be said for the Amendment but there are too many practical difficulties. I hope that when the Price Review comes there will be a special premium for cattle reared under natural conditions as distinct from beef reared under these unnatural conditions, such as barley beef, which does not seem to be acceptable to consumers generally.

Mr. W. H. K. Baker: I do not think that any Member would dispute the sincerity of the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) who moved this Amendment, but I must say that when she came down to the practical workings of her suggested scheme I found them very indefinite and completely unworkable. Her first point was that the grazing for these calves should have financial support. There are various support grants for improving grass lard.
I do not see how this would work unless it were done on an acreage basis on any one farm at any one time. It would be impossible to say that X calves should be grazed on X acres in any one field for a complete season. That is one of the practical difficulties. Referring to the hon. Lady's idea of keeping a record of where the calves are, at least nine-tenths of my staff—which consists of three people—would resign on the spot because a great deal more of their time would be spent in filling up forms than is the case now.
There is the practical difficulty of the different climates in different parts of the country. In the north of Scotland we have a very much longer winter than people in the south of England. Therefore, a differentiation would have to be made between the subsidy paid in the south of England and the subsidy paid in the north of Scotland. It would work unfairly on those farmers who breed in the north of Scotland as opposed to those who breed in the south of England.
Another difficulty which I foresee in the scheme which the hon. Lady suggests is the definition of the word "calf". When does a calf reared on grass cease to be a calf? In another part of the Bill we make provision for the calf subsidy to be paid on animals up to three years of age. When would the subsidy which the hon. Lady suggests cease to be payable?
The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) and my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) rightly dealt with the problem of the lightweight beast which is, as the hon. Member for Govan put it, built on drugs. [Interruption.] Does the hon. Member for Govan wish to intervene?

Mr. Rankin: The hon. Gentleman has quoted me as saying "built on drugs". I just said, "Built by Boots".

Mr. Baker: I understand that there should be no advertising here, as on the B.B.C.
Can the Minister give us any idea of the proportion of cattle under one year old which are being reared by the static floor method and other intensive methods about which we have heard?
The hon. Member for Govan referred to the natural habitat of a calf. It is very pleasant to see a calf running round its mother's heels, having its tea or supper just when it likes. But the hon. Gentleman must realise that in dairy farming calves are removed from their mothers at birth. Does he suggest that calves should be put out to grass straight away? They are far better housed as they are housed at the moment, particularly in winter—well cared for in warm conditions in which they are nurtured and nourished.
Farming at present demands that a farmer should have a good economic head for him to be able to make his living at all, particularly in the conditions in which the Government are trying to make farmers work. We have disincentive all along the line and very little incentive.
One of the difficulties which the farmer must face in rearing calves is the disease known in my part of the world, and no doubt throughout the country, as scour. This disease causes more deaths in young calves than any other disease I know. The one thing which increases scour in cattle is unhygienic methods of rearing indoors. Therefore, the farmer, being an intelligent man who must look to his bawbees, makes certain that his calves are well housed and that the incidence of scour is kept down. That is an absolute necessity; it is an economic necessity.
The hon. Member for Govan said that farmers live on subsidy. He stated that one had only to consider the question of milk. There has been no subsidy on milk for a good number of years. [Interruption.] There is no subsidy—I repeat, no subsidy—on milk. It is perfectly true that the Milk Marketing Board has done a great deal to help the dairy farmer. The present Government have done precious


little. The direct payment to the milk farmer is via the Milk Marketing Board and not by way of a subsidy from the Government.

10.30 p.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the only subsidy which is paid to Scottish milk producers is, in fact, paid by English milk producers?

Mr. Baker: No. I would not be able to say that. I conclude by saying that, while I respect the motives of the hon. Lady the hon. Member for Wood Green in introducing this Amendment—and I have every sympathy with her in her humane efforts—I do not consider the Amendment to be workable and, if necessary, I shall vote against it.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: One of the most remarkable features of the sincere protestations of those who wish to bring our farm animals into better conditions is that they give much of their attention to the animals and so little attention to human beings. The hon. Lady, and those hon. Members who have supported her, appeared to want the cattle to be out on grass largely because she is opposed to the confinement of animals and is opposed to drugs. I share this concern, of course, but I am bound to ask her whether she should not pay rather more attention to the confinement of people in factories, in coal mines, and in the House of Commons, where people are confined the whole time. They spend most of their working lives confined. The modern farmer expects the modern farm animal to spend most of its working life confined—in other words, putting on meat.

Mr. Farr: Would my hon. Friend not agree that the big difference between the two in the comparison which he has drawn is that one is eaten at the end of its useful life and the other is not.

Mr. Griffiths: Indeed, it is eaten, or is intended to be eaten. I simply wish to draw attention to the paradox that people so often show more concern for the animal than for the human being, and more often the human being who has to care for these animals.
The hon. Lady's Amendment has given hon. Members an opportunity to cast a number of aspersions on the farming community. It should be made quite clear that very few farmers in this country confine their animals for the whole time. Furthermore, hon. Members receive a large number of complaints from their constituents saying that intensive rearing should be abolished. I understand those complaints, but whenever I have asked constituents to show me an example of cruelty to animals, as practised by the farmers of West Suffolk, those constituents who have complained have been unable to find such an example, because the basic fact is, as the House well knows, that those who are most concerned about the well-being of our animals are the farmers themselves. I say that as one who has been up many a night with a sick sow. I know that many of my hon. Friends have been up all night on calving or with other animals. Let it be made quite clear that there is no monopoly of concern on one side of the House for the animals. Those who are most concerned are the farmers themselves, and I reject out of hand the suggestion that the farmers of this country, and certainly those in my constituency, are cruel in any way to the animals which they produce.
The hon. Lady—and I grant her complete sincerity and her long record in this matter—has made a series of suggestions that are hopelessly impracticable. They are founded on a set of erroneous suppositions and on some illogicalities. The hon. Lady supposes, for example, that the modern farm animal is, in a sense, a natural beast. But there is nothing really natural about a pig which is as long as a greyhound in order to give us lean bacon for breakfast, about a cow which yields up to 1,500 gallons of milk a year, or about a chicken, whose natural habitat is the wild jungle. If the hon. Lady will look at the kind of chicken we require nowadays either for the table or to lay eggs, she will understand that there is nothing natural about it, in the ordinary sense of the word.
The hon. Lady supposes also that the modern farm animal is in some way healthier and happier out of doors. We all know what happens when people come along in the summer sunshine, when they do bother to come out to the countryside, and they see the cattle gambolling in


the fields amid the buttercups. They go away thinking how wonderful the outdoor life is for the animals. What they fail to realise, and what the farming community knows perfectly well, is that for most of the time in England it is raining, and frequently the animals are up to their hocks in mud. Often it is extremely cold. The outdoor environment is singularly unpleasant for the animals, and it is even less pleasant for the man who has to look after them. Without doubt, the so-called natural enviroment today is a combination of outdoors when the outdoors is most suitable and indoors when the indoors is most suitable for the benefit of the animal.
The hon. Lady supposed that the consumer was crying out for grass-fed beef. This may be so, but the consumer is crying out also for cheap beef. This is the paradox which we must face. Whatever its drawbacks, barley beef is better than no beef. In the state of our society now, it may well be that, in the long term, this is the problem we have to face. We have a population increase of one-third of a million a year. We have the equivalent of one Cambridgeshire every six years taken under roofs, and every year land goes from agriculture for the building of reservoirs and all kinds of other purposes.
If the hon. Lady wants all our cattle to graze outdoors, how are we to find the land for the building of houses, reservoirs, factories and the rest, and still graze all our beef on the range? It is not possible. We have more people. We have less land for farming every year. Some kind of technological revolution must come in livestock rearing as it has already come in arable fanning.
I oppose the Amendment, not because I am in any way opposed to the spirit behind it. Naturally, one wants to see the very best done for our animals. I hope that the Minister will implement in legislation the Brambell Report. Let it be said here that, with only one or two exceptions, the farming community supported the Brambell Report. But no farmer, and, I hope, no Minister, could possibly support the Amendment. The hon. Lady has got it exactly the wrong way round. Her idea is to subsidise the price of cattle raised on grass. Why? Those who want to eat only grass-fed beef should pay the extra sum it costs to raise grass-fed beef, just as they pay

a bit more for free-range rather than battery eggs.
The point is quite simple. We shall have to produce more of our livestock under intensive conditions. It is the duty of Parliament to regulate those conditions for the greater good of both of the animals and the people.

Mr. Peter Mills: There has been a lot of muddled thinking in some of the speeches we have heard. While I must oppose the Amendment, I have sympathy with the hon. Lady for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) in what she is trying to do. If she and her hon. Friends who have put their names to the Amendment had consulted a practical farmer, he would probably have been able to help them to make it a practical Amendment.
The hon. Lady is trying to get at the problem of the intensively-reared calf under conditions which, I think, are intolerable—that is. on slatted floors in complete darkness. The hon. Lady would have a real case if she had an Amendment which sought to stop that sort of practice. I am in full sympathy with her about that very unpleasant method of producing meat.
From a practical point of view, the Amendment is just not on, for some of the reasons that my hon. Friends have given and for one or two others that I should like to suggest. There is no question that on certain farms it is right and proper, in the interests of the calf, that it should be indoors and adequately housed in buildings for its early years. It would be very cruel to allow a calf out in the sort of weather that we experience in the South-West—blustering cold winds—at this time of year. It should be properly housed.
There is another side to it, and that is the problem of disease. I remind the hon. Lady that we have such things as husk, in which a young calf suffers very much through being allowed out in its early days to eat grass. It picks up the worms and then gets this rather unpleasant disease and dies. As a farmer, I have to house my calves for the first two or three months because of the danger of husk. Then there is the disease of fluke. It is ridiculous to expose a young calf to fluke-infested pastures in its early days, when it is vitally important and in the interest of


the calf to give it protection. It has to be reared for a proportion of its time indoors.
Another method of production which is becoming fairly common and which, I think, is very good is zero grazing, in which silage or grass is brought to the calves so that, again, they have the protection and warmth of indoors and what we call controlled feeding, which gives them the best chance of growing properly and healthily. Therefore, although I see what the hon. Lady is trying to get at and I sympathise with her, her Amendment is quite the wrong sort of proposal. I am sorry, therefore, to have to oppose it.

Mr. John Mackie: It might be of help to the House if I intervene at this stage. I find myself in some difficulty, and I feel that I must declare my interest. I did not think that the debate would be quite as wide-ranging as it has been. I must admit that I have been interested in it and in the many points which have been raised. I rear calves intensively, semi-intensively and extensively.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on the detail into which she went and the technicalities she raised. Some of my hon. Friend's suggestions for administering the scheme she has in mind would, if implemented, put my Department in some difficulty.
10.45 p.m.
My hon. Friend deprecates the fact that calves are not being reared in Wood Green today. I assure her that it would be possible to rear calves in her constituency perfectly humanely. My hon. Friend visited one of my farms some time ago. At that time I was particularly interested in dairy cattle, but I invite her to pay me another visit, as I am now rearing beef and calves intensively. She will see that calves could be reared quite satisfactorily in Wood Green.
One of my hon. Friend's main arguments was that it would benefit farmers to produce, and that the main demand was for, what one might call traditional or grass-fed beef. She claimed that it was more economical to raise cattle in that way and that the demand for such cattle was greater. That has not been

my experience. Only yesterday I had a quotation of 3s. 3d. for barley beef and only 2s. 11d. for semi-intensive grass beef, per lb. live weight, including subsidy.
Those figures will be of particular interest to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) who seems to think that we should force the public to eat what we believe they should eat. I assure him that there is a big demand for barley beef. In this connection, the comments of the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) show that one can rear calves perfectly humanely in single pens, certainly to begin with. I do not wish to go into the technicalities of this matter, although it is an involved subject.
The hon. Member for Clitheroe made rather heavy weather about the killing of calves at too light a weight. Last year between 500,000 and 600,000 calves were killed. What is the point of increasing the weight of the calves that are being killed if a great demand exists for the type of meat being slaughtered? I assure the hon. Gentleman that such a demand does exist. Indeed, the present position has been created by the demand, and while the demand is there, it is better to bring the calves to the weight of 7 cwt. or 8 cwt. than to try to persuade farmers to bring them up to a heavier weight.

Mr. Hawkins: Calves have been slaughtered not because of the reason given by the hon. Gentleman but because farmers have not been able to obtain a decent price for beef. I assure the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that there is not such a great demand for bobby calves. So many calves have been slaughtered simply because, particularly in the last few months, producers have not received decent prices for their beef.

Mr. Mackie: That is not the reason. Hon Gentlemen opposite have used every possible opportunity to make remarks of that description. I will not, however, engage in an argument at this stage on that topic, except to say that the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) made some of the most outrageous statements I have heard for a long time.
My hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin), who I regret is not in his place, questioned the feeding


of drugs to animals and said that calves were being fed what he believed were wholly unsuitable drugs. That is nonsense. Think of the drugs consumed by the human race. Like many of the drugs being fed to animals, they are designed to prolong our lives and enable us to put up with all sorts of things, in Parliament and elsewhere. Therefore, when my hon. Friend said that we should deny animals health-giving drugs and we should feed them only on grass, he overstated his case.
As the hon. Member for Torrington said, it is very difficult when calves come from the dairy herds and are removed from their mothers. They then have to be reared indoors for at least to six or eight weeks, in unnatural conditions. I do not want to go into what is natural and what is unnatural, and I certainly do not want to go into whether the pen should be such and such a size, or the yard or fields so big, and so on. We would get into great difficulties there.
The hon. Member for Banff (Mr. Baker) made some point about any subsidy of this kind being unfair to the north of Scotland, but I am not sure of that point. He also said, I think wrongly, that the calf subsidy is paid once and once only from eight months onwards on any one animal. We do not pay the subsidy up to three years, but I may have misunderstood him. I do not think that he was right about scour being a disease. It is the result of several diseases rather than a disease in itself.
We appreciate the motives and concern of my hon. Friends in introducing this Amendment, but I think that it would be wrong to provide different rates of subsidy here, or any other form of subsidy as against discriminating between different systems of management. In spite of what the hon. Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Hawkins) says, the purpose of the calf subsidy is to encourage, and it is greatly encouraging, the rearing of suitable calves for beef production, and not to encourage certain husbandry systems of which hon. Members may approve rather than other systems.
The way to control any undesirable practices in these systems is to deal with them, as I assure those hon. Members who have put their names to the Amendment we propose to do, in new animal welfare

legislation. That is where this should be done, not in a Bill to encourage rearing. I must therefore ask the House to reject the Amendment, although we appreciate the spirit in which it has been proposed.

Mrs. Joyce Butler: In view of my hon. Friend's assurance, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this point will be covered in new legislation, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)2581: Is it the wish of the House that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Hawkins: I want to add a word or two on this subject, because although I am in favour of grass utilisation, and very much in favour—

Mrs. Joyce Butler: On a point of order. I asked the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment, and I did not hear any hon. Member challenge my desire to withdraw it.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Amendments can be withdrawn only by leave of the House, and I thought objection was taken. That is why I called Mr. Hawkins.

Mr. Hawkins: I am very much in favour of grass utilisation. I think we all feel that in this country not enough emphasis is put on it. The best way of utilising it is to encourage the profitability of livestock. That livestock rearing is not so profitable is the reason why so much grass is ploughed up. If we made livestock profitable, more grass would be laid down, more leys, which is what we want, particularly in the big arable districts.
A lot of what has been said in this debate has been absolute nonsense. I would not like to talk of coal mining, because I know nothing about it, but many people who speak of the rearing of cattle know nothing about the subject at all. Calves will do well outdoors if reared on their mothers—nothing is better for bringing up calves than single suckling—but it is uneconomic. On most farms the calves are coming from the dairy herds—are they to be turned out at birth in cold, wet weather? The cold does not matter so much, but if the calves get wet


on their backs they will be dead, and very unpleasantly dead, in a few weeks' time. Would hon. Members opposite turn these calves out straight from their mothers in the dairy herds into the grass in wintertime, or in early spring when there is no grass at all?
I object to the views behind this Amendment. It seems to me that one of the views is that livestock farmers do not know how to look after their stock and are, in fact, cruel to their stock. I know that 99 per cent. of farmers look after their stock, very often better than they look after their own families. Indeed, in some cases, at night the last thing to be looked at is probably the stock.
I believe that barley beef is on the way out. There are a few farmers who have tried to jump on the barley beef band wagon, and I know one large concern in Suffolk which went in for it in a big way, but which has gone out rather smartly because the enterprise ceased to be profitable. If a farmer does not look after his stock, the stock will not look after him. If he does not manage them properly, house them and feed them properly, they will lose him money. Therefore, it is in the interest of the average farmer to look after his livestock. I sincerely hope that we shall have a debate on the Brambell Report soon. I am strongly in favour of many of the recommendations in that Report. Nevertheless, we are not discussing that at the moment, and I do not believe that it should be brought into this debate.
Much nonsense has been talked about the big joint. The average housewife today is living in a town, in a small family of two or three persons, and she will not take a big sirloin of beef from a 12 cwt. beast. Before the war the average weight of beast going through the Lynn market was in the region of 14 cwt. a head, whereas today is it probably in the region of 9 cwt. It is because of the demand from the public for a small joint that we are getting this barley beef.
I oppose this Amendment because it is highly impracticable, but I realise that there are strong humanitarian reasons behind it, and I hope that we shall have a debate on the Brambell Report before long.

Mr. Farr: I hope I may be forgiven for saying a word or two on this Amendment. I congratulate the hon. Lady the Member for Wood Green (Mrs. Joyce Butler) on having introduced this very interesting Amendment which has made us all think considerably. My hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) put the matter very well when he said that farmers in this country will not tolerate cruelty to animals. On the other hand, there has to be a certain amount of give and take and common sense in this matter.
I am afraid that we are at risk of losing sight of the matter of quality. I do not believe that from a beef animal that has spent a lot of its life indoors we get the same nutritious value or the same quality in the beef when it is slaughtered fat as we do from an animal that has been reared in the traditional way. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Rankin) gave his views and he did not seem too clear about the traditional way of producing beef. I should like to say a few words on that, simply because my own constituency in Leicestershire is largely productive of beef which, for generations, has been fattened in the traditional way.
One practice is for farmers to buy store cattle from Ireland or Scotland and then fatten them on the fertile plains before sending them to market. That is what has been traditional for very many generations, but now we notice a change creeping into the pattern of the farmers' occupation. No longer can one drive through the middle of Leicestershire and see fat cattle grazing on those fertile lands and the reason is simply that the economics of the business have made it impossible for those farmers to pursue their traditional livelihood. Consequently, a number have changed over to milk production, or to arable farming and the production of corn. This change has come about not because they have not still got the best grassland at their finger tips, but simply because the economics of the situation have forced them to do so.
11.0 p.m.
I do not speak necessarily in support of this Amendment purely from humanitarian points of view, but from a commonsense point of view. Our traditional method of producing beef is the best in


the world, but unless some sort of encouragement is given to those graziers who employ this method willy-nilly, the hard fact is that they will be forced out of business—and let no hon. Member forget one fact: the substitute in the shops, and the hotels, and in the catering rooms of this House, will be nothing at all like the traditional Aberdeen Angus product which we are getting at the moment.
The hon. Member for Wood Green went into some very interesting details, and I agree with the Parliamentary Secretary when he says that some of the things for which she asked would be very difficult for his Department to implement. All I want to do is to support the hon. Lady in principle; but surely any difficulty can be overcome by a man of the dynamic nature of the Minister—[Interruption.] Some of my hon. Friends may question that, but the right hon. Gentleman will get the job done. I support the hon. Lady in principle. Never mind about the mechanics of the job; the pettifogging details, but I say to the House that unless we support this Amendment, or something like it, and not necessarily for the reasons advanced by the hon. Lady, we shall not continue to have the roast beef of England. If we continue to want it, the traditional roast beef, we shall have to think up something on these lines.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: I intervene only briefly because I am not a farmer, and I will not enter into any argument about what is the best method for producing traditional roast beef, but, in seeking to withdraw her Amendment, I was somewhat alarmed when the hon. Lady said that she would withdraw because she understood her purpose would be carried out in other legislation. I sincerely hope it will not, because the hon. Lady is wrong historically. Perhaps I should say that she is wrong from a natural history point of view. Her assumption seemed to be that the most recent methods for producing livestock were unnatural and that those of, say, 20, 30 or 50 years ago were natural. That is untrue. All our domestic animals 50 years ago were living in unnatural conditions. They have not been in a natural environment for generations. The domestic chicken is descended from the jungle cock, which is a tree-top, fast-flying bird

and is just as unnatural in a farmyard as in a battery. The pig is descended from the wild boar, which is a long-legged, fast, fierce jungle animal.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is nothing in the Amendment about chickens or wild boars.

Mr. Wilson: I will take the cow and the calf. They are descended from the aurochs or from the Chillingham cattle, which are nocturnal animals, living in forests, probably eating leaves and not grazing in fields at all—certainly not by day. The condition of the cow in the field is no more natural than are some of the more recent methods. I only hope that in any legislation dealing with this matter quite different considerations will be borne in mind than as to whether they are natural or not.
What we want is the maximum production of food in hygienic conditions which are not cruel to the animal. If we do that, the question of whether the conditions are said to be natural or not really does not arise.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question is—

Mrs. Joyce Butler: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. Leave has already been refused and cannot be renewed. I must put the question. The question is that those words be there inserted.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 11.—(SUPERVISION AND ENFORCE MENT OF CALF SUBSIDY SCHEMES.)

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 13, line 33, leave out 'Commission' and insert:
'Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland, and authorised officers of the Commission where accompanying an authorised officer of the appropriate Minister'.—[Mr. Mackie.]

Clause 12.—(NEW PROVISION FOR PAY MENT OF BEEF COW SUBSIDIES.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 22, in page 15, line 28, to leave out from 'provision' to 'that' in line 30 and insert 'designed to secure'.
In our discussion of Clause 12 in Committee on 26th July my right hon. Friend


promised the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) that he would consider a suggestion he made for amending Clause 12(5). The purpose of that subsection is to secure that while a farmer may get either beef cow subsidy or hill cow subsidy he may not get both on the one animal. On both sides of the Committee this was agreed as a proper objective; but it was accepted that, for certain technical reasons, it was not practicable to impose an absolute requirement in this sense on Ministers. The suggestion of the right hon. Member succinctly deals with the matter and after further consideration I am glad to accept it.

Mr. Godber: I thank the Government very much for their wisdom in accepting my words. If only they would do so more often things would go much better.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13.—(LEVY ON INDUSTRIES TO MEET COMMISSION'S EXPENSES.)

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 18, line 19, at the end to insert—
(12) Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this section no charges under a levy scheme shall be imposed twice on the same carcase or on any part of a carcase upon which a levy shall already have been imposed.
The purpose of the Amendment is to try to ensure that there shall be no escalation of levies. The matter was discussed at that rather memorable 13th sitting of the first Committee, when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary was good enough to take the points made and say that he would look at the matters involved. There was some discussion about who or what had the levy imposed on it.
When a certain amount of surprise was caused in the Committee by the hon. Gentleman saying that the levy would be imposed on persons, he explained that the person owning a carcase would pay the levy. When a beast is sold live no difficulty is likely to arise; once it is certified a levy will be deducted by the firm handling it from its cheque to the owner. I imagine that this is the system that will be followed.
But when stock is sent to a dead meat market for sale on the hook difficulty may arise. I should like the hon. Gentleman

to explain what he thinks is likely to happen. The dead meat market does a great deal of its trade in sections of carcases. It is normal for a butcher with a big trade in fore-ends to buy from another butcher in another part of the city, doing it through the dead meat market, who has a huge demand for steaks and sirloins but virtually none for the cheaper cuts. This is where the dead meat market comes in. Where and when is the levy to be collected in this trading on the hook?
Also, as livestock products are levy-able as well, it seems to us that it is in this field that escalation could arise. I think that the hon. Gentleman agreed with us that it would be a reductio ad absurdum if levy was involved every time a carcase was cut up. The point of the Amendment is to ensure that there be only one payment on a carcase or any part of it.

Mr. Hoy: As the hon. Gentleman said, this Amendment was debated in Standing Committee B when we discussed the previous Agriculture Bill. I was surprised at that stage when the Opposition decided to divide the Committee on it.
I explained then, as the hon. Gentleman said, that we have always thought that the simplest and fairest way of imposing the levy would prove to be a single payment at the point of slaughter, but it was represented to us —by the groups of interests most likely to be asked to pay the levy—that we should not rule out the possibility of splitting any single payment of this kind, for example between producers and the meat trade. We accepted this, and Clause 13 is drafted to make such a split possible. The effect of the Amendment now proposed is a little ambiguous, but it would make it doubtful indeed whether a scheme could competently provide for payments to come from more than one source in the way that these interests had envisaged, and many of them would, I think, regret this.
I was not quibbling or making a mere drafting point when I emphasised in the previous debate that a scheme under the Clause cannot in fact impose levies on carcases as such but only on persons. Certainly, levies would be imposed on persons in respect of carcases or other products, but this would have to be done


at some specified stage in the system of marketing and distribution. If the imposition was to be enforceable it would have to be on persons at that stage and not on carcases in some looser way.
As I have said, I expect that the Commission, after consulting the industry, will find that the best arrangement is a single payment. But the Clause is wide enough to allow it to work out—if it wants to—a scheme for imposing payments on two classes of persons in respect of the same throughput.
11.15 p.m.
Of course, I realise that the Amendment is intended to prevent an unfair scheme getting through. I must emphasise that I as much as anyone, would find any scheme which gave rise to a danger of double charging quite intolerable, and I am sure that this would apply equally to any Minister, no matter what his party. This is also true of the people who draft the scheme, of the interests concerned, who would be consulted about it, and, of course, of Parliament itself.
In practice, therefore, if there is any danger of double charging it arises not so much from the possibility of a deliberate provision in a levy scheme but because of some flaw in a scheme, and a provision of the kind proposed in the Amendment would no more prevent this than any statement by me now.
To sum up, therefore, we consider that this Amendment is, as a statement of intention, entirely unnecessary. It would be ineffective in preventing any accidental double charging which might arise from a flaw in a scheme. What it would do, no doubt unintentionally, would be to rule out any form of levy scheme which allowed for payments in respect of a single carcase being split between two persons.
In the light of my explanation of the intention to meet all the interests concerned, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel satisfied and withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 14.—(LEVY: REGISTRATION, RETURNS AND RECORDS.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 18, line 30, to leave out 'on behalf' and to insert 'by officers'.
We discussed this matter in Committee. I raised it myself and moved the Amendment fairly briefly. I hope to do the same now. On that occasion the Joint Parliamentary Secretary gave a sympathetic reply, saying,
We want to do what is right … "—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 2nd August. 1966; c. 482.]
This was the most extensive statement we got out of the Government during the Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman went on to give an assurance that he would look at this again to see if he could put down something more specific. We looked keenly for a Government Amendment, as they wished to do what was right, but we realise that the hon. Gentleman has been rushed with other things. We have, therefore, put this Amendment down again.
The issue is simple. We are dealing here with levy registration in terms of records and we feel that if they who have paid the levy are to be called upon to produce for examination books and other documents in their custody or under their control the least that can be done is to ensure that they only have to produce them to officers of the Commission. But in this subsection it is laid down that they should be produced for examination
… on behalf of the Commission …
The wording is unnecessarily loose. We accept the need to produce books and other documents to prevent avoidance of proper payment of the levy but we feel it right that there should be a limitation as to who should examine them. We hope that the Government, having failed to put down an Amendment of their own, will accept this one.

Mr. Hoy: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right. When this Amendment was discussed in Committee I gave an undertaking that we would consider whether it was possible to specify more closely what persons, other than officers of the Commission, were empowered by Clause 14(1,b) to examine books and other documents.
We have thought about this very carefully but have had to conclude that there are sound reasons for keeping this subsection in the form which has been used in so many other Acts in the past. The problem is essentially to be able at this stage to predict all the types of person who


should be given this power. That is not to say that we expect this provision to be used by the Commission to authorise any Tom, Dick or Harry to examine a firm's books. On one occasion, by the way, I had to resist considerable pressure by an hon. Member opposite to make the provision rather wide.
However, the provision could conceivably be used to authorise, say, a firm of accountants, or perhaps a legal representative, to do so. We considered confining the powers just to officers of the Commission and accountants and lawyers acting on behalf of the Commission, as was suggested in Committee, but it then occurred to us that there might be others who did not immediately spring to mind and who might nevertheless require these powers. Let me give one example which did not strike me at the time. We went into three cases which arose in the time of our predecessors where we found that in dealing with cases in Wales Welsh interpreters had to be called in to have a look at the books and had to be empowered to do so. If we had written the provision in the way we considered, that type of person would have been kept out. We have therefore had to conclude that we should leave this subsection in a form similar to that of provisions included in many other Acts dealing with this type of matter.
It is hardly necessary for me to add that we would expect the Commission to be extremely discreet about the way in which these powers were used, as other similar bodies are. We have not had any failure of trust in that respect and I hope, and this is a hope which I am sure will he fulfilled, that the Commission will act with no less responsibility in this regard than other bodies. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that we have given this subject much consideration.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It is useful that the hon. Gentleman should have given the assurance that he will expect the Commission to work with the utmost circumspection in the choice of its agents to examine the books of other farmers. In a rural area the people whom the Commission might send to perform such tasks might be engaged in the same kind of business as those whose books they are to examine. I know that as a practical

man the Parliamentary Secretary will appreciate the embarrassment which that could cause and, above all, the suspicion which could be caused if farmers were led to believe that there would be a lot of snooping and Nosey Parkering.
I am very glad that the Parliamentary Secretary has given this assurance, but I regret that he has been unable to specify a little more clearly who "Mr. Behalf" is to be. He said that the Commission would not use any Tom, Dick or Harry. That is all very well, but I wish that the phrasing could have been extended to include "such as authorised agents of the Commission", then clearly setting out in a Schedule who those authorised agents could be. The House is being asked to accept the widest possible phrase and I am extremely uneasy that legal language has not been found to confine the provision a little more closely.

Mr. Godber: While, like my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), I feel a little uneasy about this provision, the assurance which the Parliamentary Secretary has given has been very helpful. I must admit that I had not thought about interpreters into Welsh, or Gaelic, or any other language. Certainly we would not wish the occupants of those strange countries to avoid payment, and for that reason I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 21.—(INQUIRIESBY COMMISSION.)

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 27, in page 22, line 33, after 'their', to insert relevant '.
I raised this subject in Committee when I received considerable support from my lion. Friends and when the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would look into the matter, and we got a half promise that something would be done about the problem.
Clause 21 deals with the Commission's powers to institute inquiries about its functions. I think that I should make quite clear at this stage that what I understand is intended by these inquiries is not that they should be some form of judicial inquiry into the structure of certain parts of the livestock or livestock marketing industries but perhaps rather deep inquiries into the profitability or


financial structure of these industries and they would be in some ways extremely confidential.
Subsection (2) allows for anyone to be summoned to give evidence and produce documents relating to matters specified on the summons and this gives rise to the difficulty, because when the original summons is sent out by the Commission to somebody to attend an inquiry, the matters specified are clearly annotated. It is right that there should be an ability to object because the subject of an inquiry would be extremely confidential and more in the nature of academic investigations which by their nature would be of extremely private and confidential matters.
It is right that there should be a right to appeal for people summoned, against having to give evidence and produce documents. This is dealt with in subsection (4). The problem is that the appeal is heard in the High Court and can be upheld only if it can be shown that the evidence or documents demanded by the original summons are not reasonably required by the Commission, not just for the inquiry into the matters specified in the summons, but for the whole functions of the Commission.
It is apparent that the proviso is right, but the weight and value of the right of appeal will be much diluted, because subsection (4) refers to the execution of all the functions of the Commission. I feel, and I have the agreement of my hon. Friends that it would be far better if subsection (4) referred only to the relevant functions specified on the original summons under subsection (2).
This seems to me a fair safeguard for somebody who is being summoned to appear and to divulge extremely confidential and private matters, as he has to. A strong case can be made for doing this by just inserting the word "relevant" in line 33 before the word "functions".
I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it in toto this time. If he will not, one can reasonably ask him why it has become necessary to particularise in subsection (2) when subsection (4) allows the Commission to summon evidence and documents of a far wider nature than subsection (2). I do not understand why close specification has to be made under sub-section (2) while the right of appeal

covers all functions of the Commission which are very broad. This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the Minister will be able to accept it.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Peart: The hon. Member has put his case reasonably and objectively. It is true that this matter was discussed in Committee and we have examined it again since. I am certain that this is not the best way to deal with the matter, and that the effect of the Amendment would not be satisfactory. It is probably intended to specify more closely and make more effective than does the present draft the grounds for appeal against a summons under Clause 21(2) to attend and give evidence at an inquiry.
I have looked at this very carefully, and its effect would be to confuse the issue. The advice that I have been given is that it might reduce the effectiveness of these provisions, leaving the court to choose what is meant by "relevant functions" from a number of possible meanings. I really have looked at this carefully and I am told that the insertion of this would only confuse matters.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support my hon. Friend's concern about the language of this Bill. The Clause indicates that the Commission may hold such inquiries as it considers necessary or desirable in the discharge of any of its functions. As I read the Bill the Commission has the most enormous powers. The intention of subsection (4) of this Clause is that the farmer, when asked to provide information to the Commission, should at some stage be able to say, "No, this is none of your business. It is not relevant to the inquiry."
If the Commission is able to reply, "We are entitled to ask for any information at all that is relevant to our function and not just to the particular matter concerning an individual farmer", then the protection given under subsection (4) is no protection at all. If the Commission wishes to require him to provide any information it likes, there is no real protection, unless some particularisation is injected into the Bill, as my hon. Friend seeks to do.
Can the Minister answer two short questions? When the Commission sends out its summons it will presumably use the local policeman. Can he say if he has


had any consultation with the Home Secretary on the practicalities of this matter? Policemen will have to spend a very long time going round a large number of farms finding farmers, who may not want to be found, and that could be a great problem. Has the Minister consulted the Lord Chancellor about the pressures that this could add to the High Court? Perhaps he has had these consultations, and my anxiety is unnecessary but if he should, by leave of the House, reply, I hope that he will deal with these points.

Mr. Stodart: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the insertion of this word would not be satisfactory but, alas, he has not said why. I am sure that he should because at present I am entirely on the side of my hon. Friends. As far as I can tell from the Clause the position is that, under subsection (1), the Commission can hold an inquiry, can summon witnesses and demand the production of documents. The person served can appeal to the High Court on the ground that the evidence of the documents are not reasonably required by the Commission to discharge its functions. Which functions? Any of the functions?
There are an awful lot of them. Over 20 are listed in Schedule 1. It is wholly unreasonable for the Commission to be able to insist on evidence or documents by quoting some function which may have no direct bearing upon the point at issue. It is perfectly possible that a person might be forced to give evidence over a much wider area than he was willing to do. Because of this it seems that the insertion of the word "relevant" is a perfectly satisfactory safeguard. When the Minister merely says that he has looked at the point very carefully, that is not enough. We must have some explanation before we let this matter go.

Mr. Peart: I was asked about the summons. It will be in the form of a notice served on the person concerned. With regard to consultations, I did have consultations, as one obviously has in these matters. When a matter concerns other Departments we always have the closest consultations. I have said that I had taken careful advice on this. I was anxious to be helpful.
Perhaps I could explain the effect of this Amendment. By adding the word

"relevant" to Clause 21(4), it presumably invites the court, when hearing an appeal, to consider which functions are relevant. By what criteria does the court judge? To what purpose or thing is a function required to be "relevant"? The amended subsection could conceivably be interpreted as meaning relevant to—here I quote the purpose of the Clause as described in subsection (1)—
…the discharge of any of their functions",
or to the purposes of the particular inquiry, or to the matters specified in the summons. That is to give only three examples.
In practice, the interpretation in some of these cases would not significantly alter the meaning of the Clause from what it is at present. As I pointed out in my opening remarks, this would really only confuse the matter. For this reason, and on the advice that I have received, I hope that hon. Members will not press the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 28, in page 23, line 21, at the end to insert—
(10) The procedure at any such inquiry shall, subject to the foregoing provisions of this section and any direction under section 20 above, be determined by the Commission, but so that any person appearing thereat shall be entitled to representation by counsel, solicitor or any other person.
This Amendment would make it clear that any person summoned to appear before an inquiry under Clause 21 may be represented by a lawyer or another person, such as an official of a trade association. This point was raised by hon. Members. I am grateful for the points which have been made, and I hope that the Amendment is satisfactory to hon. Members.

Mr. Stodart: I will do no more than thank the Minister for taking up another of our suggestions.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 23.—(POWER OF ENTRY.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 24, line 9, at the beginning to insert:
'For the purpose of obtaining information with respect to any matter which is of concern to the Commission'.


When we discussed Clause 23 in Committee, we accepted the point made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and said that we would see if it would be possible to limit the purposes for which these powers could be used. We have looked at this matter again, and we propose to limit the purposes for which these powers can be used to the obtaining of information on matters which are of concern to the Commission. This is very close to the wording suggested by the hon. Member, and I hope the House will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: We had suggested that this should be inserted at the end of the subsection, but we are perfectly happy to have it at the very beginning, and we are grateful to the Minister.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 32, in page 24, line 20, to leave out
'has power to enter under'
and to insert, 'enters by virtue of'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this Amendment we are to discuss. Amendment No. 31, in page 24, line 20, to leave out 'A person' and to insert 'An authorised officer'.

Mr. Mackie: Subsection (2) of Clause 23 would permit authorised officers of the Commission, when exercising their powers of entry, to take in with them such other persons as may be necessary. Subsection (3), if amended by Amendment No. 32, would provide powers of inspection for both the authorised officers of the Commission and the accompanying persons.
Amendment No. 31 does not seek to omit the first of these provisions, that relating to powers for authorised officers of the Commission to take other persons in with them when entering premises, but it would have the absurd effect of preventing these accompanying persons from inspecting livestock, meat and other things when they got there. It would, therefore, prevent these persons from playing their part under Clause 23.
We explained in Standing Committee —cols. 572–3 of the OFFICIAL REPORT—why we thought it necessary to provide for the possibility of persons accompanying authorised officers. Without going

over the whole discussion again, I will summarise the points then made. I emphasise that we are not suggesting that anybody should be enabled to enter premises, but we do think that it will sometimes be necessary for an authorised officer of the Commission to take with him someone else who will act as a witness—perhaps an expert one, but not necessarily so—who will provide corroborative evidence in any subsequent legal proceedings that may be necessary. On previous experience in the Ministry, we know that this is sometimes necessary in order to obtain expert advice, to provide a witness in urgent cases, or to permit a local officer to accompany a headquarters officer.
The alternative would be to authorise a large number of Commission officers to enter premises, a step we would regret, and to make these authorised officers work in pairs, which would be a waste of public money. What we propose is simple and has worked well in previous cases. This is why we wish to provide these powers and why we oppose the Opposition's Amendment No. 31.
Amendment No. 32 is concerned merely with a drafting flaw which was raised by the hon. Member for Sudbury and Woodbridge (Mr. Stainton) in Standing Committee—col. 575 of the OFFICIAL REPORT. As the Bill is at present drafted, there is some doubt whether it actually gives powers of entry to the persons accompanying authorised officers. Consequently, when subsection (3) refers to persons having
power to enter under this section
there is some doubt whether this is wide enough to cover the accompanying persons as well as the authorised officers of the Commission. The Amendment should clear up any doubt. The revised wording refers to persons entering
by virtue of this section
and this clearly applies to both authorised officers of the Commission and any persons they may take in with them.

Mr. Godber: The Parliamentary Secretary has shown the danger of an Opposition putting down Amendments in some instances. He has not accepted what we suggested but has gone in the opposite direction. Had we left things as they were, he would probably not have put his Amendment down and we should


have achieved our objective. It shows that, perhaps, we have been too persistent in trying to press our case.
We on this side are very nervous about the additional persons. We do not dispute that authorised officers should have any access that is necessary. By our Amendment we have sought to bring it back to the authorised officers. The Minister has rejected this and we have his Amendment now which makes it abundantly clear that any other person who is taken in by an authorised officer will be able to carry out any inspections he himself thinks necessary, whether he is instructed to do so by the authorised officer or not. That is how I understand it. I am, therefore, even less happy than before the Amendment was moved.
11.45 p.m.
We have felt all along that the powers of entry which are being proliferated in various ways should be given with the greatest reluctance. While we accepted that they should be given for an authorised officer, we are not at all happy at their extension to other people. We cannot welcome either the rejection of our Amendment or the initiation of the Government's Amendment. Both these things operate against our wishes. We do not think it necessary to give these wide powers of inspection to unrestricted other persons.
The previous subsection merely refers to them as
such other persons as may appear
to the authorised officer to be
necessary".
It is a very wide category. The authorised officer can take with him in this way anybody he likes to take, and anybody who he takes in will then have powers, because he will have entered
by virtue of this section",
to
inspect any livestock or meat or…any price lists or price marks, labels, tags or tickets or any other displays of prices of meat for sale.
Anybody who is taken by an authorised officer will be able to do this.
This is extending the Clause unnecessarily widely and I can only deplore what the Government are doing in this

regard. It would have been better had it been left as it was. We wished the Minister to make a firm restriction. He has not made a case for this extension and I can only regret that he has felt it necessary to move his Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 24.—(DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 25, line 20, at the end to add:
(4) This section, except subsections (1)(b) and (2), extends to Northern Ireland.
The Amendment is necessary to ensure that information obtained by persons in Northern Ireland by virtue of Part I of the Bill shall be subject to the same rules and penalties relating to disclosure as those applying to persons obtaining information in the rest of the United Kingdom. Effectively, the Amendment will bite only in respect of information obtained by virtue of an order under Clause 11(1.d)—supervision and enforcement of Calf Subsidy Schemes—since the remainder of Part I, with the exception of Clauses 10 and 12, does not extend to Northern Ireland. I hope the House will agree that it is right that information obtained in Northern Ireland should be protected in this way and I therefore ask the House to approve the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 25.—(INTERPRETATION OF PART I.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 34, in page 26, line 25, after 'Wales' to insert 'and Northern Ireland'.
The Amendment rectifies an omission in the Bill by providing a definition of Northern Ireland slaughterhouses in respect of those Clauses of Part I which extend to Northern Ireland and in which the word appears. There is only one such Clause, Clause 11, which deals with the supervision and enforcement of Calf Subsidy Schemes. The Amendment will enable Northern Ireland slaughterhouses to be defined in orders made for this purpose. I ask the House to approve the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 26.—(GRANTS FOR AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.)

Mr. James Davidson: I beg to move Amendment No. 35, in page 27, line 11, after 'land', to insert:
'that is not itself already a commercial unit'.
Of the several Amendments to the Bill tabled by my colleagues and myself, we consider this to be perhaps the most important. A vital point of principle is involved. As the Bill reads, there is nothing to stop a farmer or landowner with thousands of acres of good arable land already in hand taking in an uncommercial unit, adding it to his already eminently commercial unit and, in addition, collecting an amalgamation grant paid out of the taxpayer's pocket.
As the Clause stands, it means that a small man—the man who occupies an uncommercial or intermediate unit—who wishes to purchase an adjoining uncommercial unit will have no advantage over a third neighbour—an occupier of a large and viable unit—who is after the same piece of land. The large farm will grow larger, with public assistance, and the small farm will remain small and will probably eventually be swallowed up by the same large farm. I know of a specific case where this is likely to happen directly the Bill is enacted; that is, unless the Minister accepts the Amendment.
Surely the object of this Part of the Bill is to create viable holdings out of non-viable ones, and not to make the big farm bigger and to eliminate the small farm—a process that is, in any case, going on, with the aid of the taxpayer's money. I trust, therefore, that the Minister will accept the Amendment. If not, my hon. Friends and I will divide the House.

Sir Frank Pearson: While the object of the Amendment may be highly laudable, I cannot help feeling that in practice it would be totally impossible to apply. The hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, West (Mr. James Davidson) said he knew of a case where, when the Bill becomes law, a so-called non-viable unit will be taken over by, and added to, what is already a highly commercial unit. In principle, I see no objection to that taking place.

Mr. Davidson: The hon. Gentleman is misquoting me. I said I knew of a specific case where two farms would

be in competition for the purchase of a non-viable or uncommercial holding. Under the Bill as drafted, the large farm will probably get the additional holding because of the availability of greater capital while the small farm, which wishes to take over the non-viable unit with the object of amalgamating to produce one viable unit, will have no advantage in that exercise. It means that one unit will remain non-viable instead of there being two viable units.

Sir Frank Pearson: I see the difficulty and understand the object of the Amendment. However, the fact remains that in that, as in most cases, there will be one contiguous farm. It is in the general interest that the non-viable unit should be amalgamated, although the Amendment would shut out the possibility in certain circumstances of a non-viable unit being amalgamated with a viable one. While accepting the difficulty, I do not believe it possible to legislate to ensure that one non-viable unit is in all circumstances amalgamated with another non-viable one.
Although the hon. Gentleman said that he and his hon. Friends would divide the House if the Minister does not accept the Amendment, I trust that hon. Members will vote against the proposal, since it could not possibly be acceptable to any hon. Member who has considered the application of the Bill.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: I thoroughly disagree with the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). We are concerned here with public money and not with a natural economic process. We must consider whether public money should be spent for this purpose. We might have a 30-acre holding which is considered to be non-viable. Next door to it is a holding of 500 acres and one of 80 acres. Under the Bill as drafted, the 500-acre holding would have exactly the same economic advantages and public money available as would the 80-acre holding. If the 80-acre and the 30-acre holdings were to be amalgamated that might make a viable economic unit, and public money would be rightly expended for that purpose. Under the Bill as at present drafted, the farmer with the 500-acre holding would be in competition with the farmer with 80 acres, but would still have


exactly the same amount of public assistance. I submit that that is quite wrong, and alien, I should have thought, to the spirit of the Bill. I therefore cannot see why the Minister will not accept this Amendment.

Mr. Henry Clark: As my hon. Friend the Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has said, this Amendment is far too sweeping and there is some muddled thinking behind it. The Robin Hood attitude of backing the small man against the big man is all very well, but what about the man with the 30 acres who is selling? Is he not entitled to get the best possible price for his land? If the big man with capital can pay him a decent price but suffers a disability compared with the man with the 80 acres, the man who is selling will not get as good a price for his land, and one of the objects set out in the White Paper, and of this whole Clause, is to get that man out of his 30 acres. To back the small man against the big man is all very well, but it is usually someone in between who gets hurt. If we accepted the Amendment, we would find that the man who got hurt would be the man who was selling and trying to help to create a viable holding.
In Committee, I spent some time trying to persuade the Government that where land was sold in somewhat remote areas to the Forestry Commission—which in Northern Ireland is the biggest single landowner, and probably is on this side of the Irish Sea as well—that should count as an amalgamation. If we were to accept this Amendment, land sold to the Commission—whose total land holding is certainly a viable unit—could not possibly, in any circumstances, even in the case of a rural development board as specified in the Bill, qualify for amalgamation grant. This is one of the most muddled Amendments I have come across, and I very sincerely recommend the House to reject it.

Mr. Peart: This Amendment would exclude from grant any amalgamation in which any of the pieces of land concerned was already a commercial unit. I appreciate some of the sentiments behind this Amendment. It would, of course, be very nice if we could build the commercial farms which are the target for this scheme entirely out of uncommercial

units. Where this is possible, we shall be delighted to help the process with grant aid under this scheme.
But hon. Members must appreciate that we must be realistic, and accept the fact that in many areas the only amalgamation possible for an uncommercial unit may be with a farm which is already commercial. If we were to accept this Amendment, we should be depriving the occupiers of these holdings of their chance to take an outgoers' payment under the Bill, and I do not think that that would be right. We want to encourage as many amalgamations as possible, provided only that at least one uncommercial unit is absorbed and that a commercial unit is formed.
If there are any fears that by letting in units which are already commercial we shall be grant-aiding the formation of over-large units, let me dispel them. We have it in mind to test the prudency of amalgamation proposals, and this will rule out transactions producing a unit of unwieldy size.
12 m.
Anyone taking these grants will also have to consider whether he can accept the conditions preventing fragmentation. This may deter the formation of overlarge farms. I do not, therefore, think that there is any risk under the present provisions of the Bill that the size of grant-aided amalgamations will get out of hand. On the other hand, we want to afford every opportunity for these uncommercial holdings to amalgamate.
For these reasons, I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Prior: The Minister has introduced a completely new principle into the whole business of amalgamations. He has set himself up as someone who is to decide what is the size of unit that we should aim at in British agriculture and what is the prudent size for a farmer to go for. I am prepared to give way if I have got this wrong, but, as I understand it, the Minister is discussing what is a prudent agricultural unit. I do not think it could possibly be the job of the Minister to decide what is a prudent unit. It must surely be for the farmer to decide what is right for his own particular use. Farmers vary enormously in their capacity. What is the right size for one farmer in one part of


the country with one type of land may be completely wrong for another type of farmer in another part of the British Isles.
It is wrong of the Government to introduce this business of prudency into the Bill. I think this matter of the prudent landlord is a lot of nonsense, anyhow.[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] The prudent landlord provision in the improvement grant I consider to be absolute nonsense. I have very strong grounds for saying that. What must surely be right is what the farmer himself is able to support. For the Minister to tell us that he will not give an amalgamation grant to a farmer because he might consider that that farmer is getting too big a farm is absolute nonsense. It is not his job at all. I hope the Minister will think very seriously before he continues along that line.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minnster has cast doubt on what has been said from these benches. The words that he used—he can check them in HANSARD—Were that he would not be in favour of the Bill being used to produce unwieldy units. What does he mean by "unwieldy units"? Does he feel that he can set himself up as judge and jury of what is unwieldy and what is not?
Surely the size of a farm that is economically viable is a matter which depends on the man who owns it, on his system of farming, on his opportunities, initiative and investment. These are the matters on which the whole system of our agriculture is based. Far be it from any Minister to set himself up as the determiner of what is and what is not unwieldy.
The Minister has, possibly inadvertently, sprung on the House at this last moment a quite different conception. If, as some of my hon. Friends are suggesting, this is the Minister's sinister purpose, then, as one who was not a member of the Standing Committee, I am very glad that he has brought this out. He appears to be trying to do something that a lot of people have not appreciated. He is setting himself up as the determiner of the size of farms. He is quite incompetent to do that—not in terms o' his personal abilities, although no doubt he would rate them a little more highly than I would, but I doubt whether it is within his province, as Minister, to regard himself as a determiner of what is

wieldy and what is not. I hope, therefore, that he will take back that intention of deciding the wieldiness of our farms.

Mr. Godber: We have had some rather strange interchanges on this Amendment. When I first saw it on the Paper, after I had heard the intention of the hon. Member who moved it, I thought that the intention of such an Amendment would be wrong because it would tend to distort the purposes for which this part of the Bill is produced, namely, that larger units are better. Yet one must have a degree of flexibility in the matter of amalgamations, and while it is desirable that there should be two non-commercial units which could be combined together, one cannot guarantee that there would always be two such units in proximity. It would be very wrong indeed to deny the incentive for a larger unit simply because it was a larger unit. Therefore, I could not possibly support this Amendment which has been supported by the Liberal benches. I must say that it is intriguing to find the enthusiasm displayed on the Liberal benches tonight. It may not be altogether unconnected with other events, and one—

Mr. James Davidson: It is perfectly ridiculous for the right hon. Member to say that in view of the fact that Amendments had to be submitted before the Christmas Recess.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member should not be so touchy. I was not referring to his chances at all in what is happening. I am surprised at his degree of touchiness. All that I was going to say was that I could not possibly support this Amendment, nor could I advise my hon. Friends to do so because its effect would be quite wrong for good agricultural planning or for what the Minister has in mind.
My hon. Friends the Members for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) picked up a rather extraordinary intervention by the Minister. Perhaps it is the lateness of the hour, but the Minister may realise when he reads what he said that possibly he stated more than he thought.

Mr. Peart: What I said was that we have it in mind to test the prudeney of amalgamations. I see nothing wrong in that. A lot of public money will be involved, and one has to take care in


such circumstances. I should have thought that that is what prudency means. I am rather surprised that the right hon. Gentleman and some of his hon. Friends should have picked on this, and my advice to the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) would be to take that into account.

Mr. Godber: I had not come on to the word "prudent". I was going to, but my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) is rather touchy about the word. I want to make it clear, however, that there is a great difference between being a prudent landlord, for example, and being prudent in the way which the Minister wants. There is more than one landlord, but when there is only one Minister, one cannot be sure about his degree of prudency at any given time. I should not want the Minister's task in being prudent in this subsection, nor do I want it left as a legacy for myself.
The Minister really should stick to the principles which he set out in his original White Paper which were at least working in the right direction. I do not think that the Bill will succeed particularly well, because the incentives are not sufficient. I recall that the principle established in the White Paper, and which this Clause of the Bill seeks to embody, is that it is right to have larger units and better economic amalgamations. This is a logical development. I do not go along with the introduction of questions of unwieldy size and a decision of the Minister as to prudency of size and a desire not to encourage what are termed unwieldy units. I do not think it reasonable for Ministers or their officials to decide on this. It can vary greatly in regard to the area in which the farm is located. While there may be an optimum size for particular types of agricultural units, I believe that the larger units are in the main the most efficiently run over a large aspect of farming.
I therefore think that it would be quite wrong to say that, from the agricultural point of view, one should choose a particular size of unit. From the social point of view, the point of view of the occupants, I have sympathy with what the Liberals wish to achieve here, but I do not think that it is right to try to tie the matter down in this way, because

I am sure that to do so would produce all sorts of difficulties.
An obvious need is to see that the uncommercial unit to be amalgamated is amalgamated with whatever unit is near and seeking to amalgamate with it. Clearly, if the choice is between two units, it must be to the advantage of the smallest man, whom one is seeking to help and for whom public money is to be available, to get the highest price he can for his unit. I am sure that the Minister would not wish to deny that. I could not go along with either the Liberals or with the Minister in his musings on unwieldiness of size. I hope that he will stick to the Bill as it is at present.

Mr. Pardoe: The Minister expressed himself as surprised that certain hon. Members on the Conservative benches introduced a new element into the debate. I do not see why he was surprised. It is necessary for the Conservative Party to introduce a red herring on any Liberal Amendment to obscure the real issues behind it.
The process of amalgamation is already happening, and whether we pass the Amendment or not it will go on. We are talking about public money being spent to encourage that process in certain selected areas. It is nonsense to suggest that no take-overs will take place by commercial units if our Amendment is carried. Commercial units are already taking over non-commercial units or small farms and will continue to do so by the natural law of economic forces.
All we ask is, "Why should public money be spent to encourage those who are already able to take over smaller farms when they could do it without public money?". We need to put the public money available into encouraging the medium-sized farms, the non-viable farms, to take over the smaller units.
The idea has been put forward by certain Conservative speakers that the seller would suffer. It is nonsense to suggest that anybody will stop the small farmer who wants to sell his farm selling it to the highest bidder. In many ways the Amendment might well improve the price he would receive, because if one can create two potential buyers where there was only one before the increasing competition for the farm may lead to a higher price.
My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) gave an example. He said that there might be a 30- acre farm with an 80-acre farm next to it, and a farm of 500 acres on the other side. We should like to see the 80-acre 'arm take over the 30-acre farm and be a viable commercial unit, but without the grant that farmer might not be able to make a bid. The 500-acre farmer will be able to make a bid anyway. If there are two people in the market bidding for the 30-acre farm the seller may well end up with a better price.

Mr. Kitson: I have a certain amount of sympathy with the Amendment, but I believe that if it were accepted it would put the Minister in a most invidious position. The example we have heard is easy to appreciate, but what happens if the man with the 30-acre farm can sell to either a farmer with an 80-acre farm or a farmer with a 90-acre farm? Who will choose in those circumstances?

Mr. Pardoe: Wherever public money is being spent in a selective way, someone has to make a choice about which unit shall receive grant or help. There are already in the Bill certain measures by which this shall be decided. The Ministry will have to exercise choice in this as in many other areas of the Act. That is the answer to the point.

12.15 a.m.

Mr. James Davidson: I am glad of the opportunity to reply, as the proposer of the Amendment, to one or two points that have been made in the debate.
I protest mildly at the assertion that this is a muddle-headed Amendment. It was first put forward in a booklet as far back as 1964. I have been a practical farmer for 11 years, and have also been a member of my area executive of the N.F.U. for six years. It is hardly fair to suggest that I am muddle-headed in a matter about which I have considerable knowledge.
It is a popular assumption, particularly among members of a certain political party, that the larger a farm is the more efficient it necessarily is. I would draw to the attention of such persons statistics produced by the North of Scotland College of Agriculture, from which they

may realise that the most efficient are units of 250–350 acres and that over that that size efficiency on average tends to fall back.

Mr. Kitson: Where?

Mr. Davidson: If hon. Members dispute that, they should look at the statistics. I will give the hon. Member the address of the college later.

Mr. Kitson: I asked "Where?" because I wanted to know where the hon. Gentleman can generalise to this extent. Two hundred and fifty acres in hill land is completely different from 250 acres in arable land.

Mr. Davidson: I am referring to arable acres. The statistics to which I refer show about seven different classifications of farms, but I think that hon. Members will be able to follow what I have been arguing.
I would ask the Minister to answer a question. If he answers it in a specific way it will make it clear to my hon. Friends and myself how we should vote on this issue. Is it the intention of the Clause that money should be given to large farms and large estates which are taking in small farms as soon as they fall vacant? I could give specific examples of three or four estates in my constituency where it has been the practice for a number of years without any good effects on agriculture and with very bad effects on social conditions. I would make it clear that I am not condemning landowners and estate owners as a whole. There are some very good landowners and estate owners, but there are also some very bad ones, and there are certain estates where this has been the practice. Under the Bill as it exists, not only will this land grabbing continue but the land grabber will be subsidised by the taxpayer. If this is the intention of the Bill, I suppose we shall have to accept it, but my hon. Friends and I will not be very willing to do so.
With regard to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe), that the grant will put the small man in a better position to compete for available non-commercial units, it needs to be reiterated that the large farm will be in a position to compete for the small unit anyway. Making grants available only to non-commercial units


will put the small man in a more competitive position, and certainly the seller of the land will not be the loser.

Mr. Hawkins: I would have considerable sympathy with the Liberal Amendment if I thought it was practicable. I must admit that I do not feel very inclined to spend public money where a 1,000-acre farm buys the only other 50-acre holding in the middle of a village, for that is wrong. If the hon. Gentleman had been on the Standing Committee he would know that I have always said that one cannot talk about acreage only in this context. If one talks about a good small farm then generally, in production and other matters, it can beat into a cocked hat a very large farm on the same type of land. I have always been convinced of this.
On the other hand, who is to decide these very difficult points as to which farm is to get a grant of this sort and which is not? In our district, we are against these amalgamation grants altogether. I made that clear in Committee. We feel that amalgamations are going on fast in present economic circumstances and we do not want to push the process, particularly in our area, although I know that, in other areas, some of my hon. Friends feel that amalgamations can be of some value.
I have the greatest sympathy with this argument. I see the point clearly, but I think it wrong to pay out in the circumstances I have outlined. I can see, as an arbitrator who knows something about land, the immense difficulties of deciding who is to have the grant and who is not. For that reason, I cannot support the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 27, line 37, at end to insert 'since 4th August 1966'.
I confess at once that the year stated in the Amendment should be 1965 and not 1966 but in this I was led astray by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary in an intervention on 20th October last. We had raised this matter in the Standing Committee. The subsection states:
…and may in particular exclude amalgations of land which has reverted from being in single ownership or occupation.
We suggested then that it would be wrong to have no date written in. It was pointed

out Mat it could be argued under this wording that any land which had reverted at any time since the Domesday Book could be debarred. We understand that the intention would be to deal with this in the scheme but we believe that some limitation of time should be written into the Bill rather than rely entirely on the scheme.
I suggested 10 years as reasonable but the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
We will be much more generous than the right hon. Gentleman suggests with his period of 10 years. We are thinking of going back to 4th August, when the scheme was first put forward in a White Paper."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 20th October. 1966; c. 678–0.]
He was referring to 4th August, 1965, but we took it as being in relation to 1966, which is why that year is stated in the Amendment. We believe that, as the hon. Gentleman has specifically mentioned that date, we should have it in the Bill. The Amendment—with the change I have specified—would only spell out what the hon. Gentleman himself said on 20th October as being the intention of the Government. Presumably, it is intended to put the date into the scheme, but I invite the Minister to put it in the Bill, for it is far better to have a limitation of this kind definitely written into the Bill than merely relying on a scheme. Hon. Members on both side of the House will accept that without some limitation in time there would be a nonsense.
I appreciate that the Amendment as it stands cannot be accepted, for the wording is not exactly right, but we would be satisfied if the Government accepted the intention and in another place brought forward an Amendment, either on the basis of our original proposal, or on the basis of what the Parliamentary Secretary said when in Committee he said that he wished to be more generous than that.
It would be better for the date to be written into the Bill. Too many things are being left to delegated legislation—schemes, Orders, regulations—and writing this provision into the Bill would add clarity and make perfectly clear what was intended.

Mr. John Mackie: I must apologise to the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) for missing out "1965" in my efforts to be cryptic in what was a rather long session on the subject, and I appreciate why he made a mistake.
As it stands, subsection (2) enables a scheme made under it to exclude from grant land fragmented from being in one ownership or occupation. Obviously, as the right hon. Gentleman said, it would be wrong to pay public money for putting together again land which had recently been in one ownership or occupation, but had since been broken up.
No particular date is specified in the subsection, because we want to keep the Clause flexible on this point so that the individual schemes made under it can take account of the conditions then current. Now the Amendment is intended in effect to provide a backstop date, so that in excluding fragmented land from grant the Minister could not exclude any land which had been fragmented before 4th August, 1965. That was the date on which the White Paper announcing these proposals was published.
We are against burdening main legislation with details of this kind which, as the right hon. Gentleman on reflection will probably agree, are more appropriate to a statutory scheme than to a Bill. That is why we are excluding the date. I hope that with that explanation the right hon. Gentleman will agree to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 28, line 7, after 'land', to insert 'and dwellings'

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): With this we can discuss Amendment No. 144, in page 28, line 7, leave out 'is' and insert 'are'.

Mr. Clark: The Amendment is straightforward and is a close parallel with an Amendment which I moved in the 14th sitting of the Standing Committee. That was rather more specific, but this wording is adequate to cover the point.
When I moved the Amendment in Committee, the Minister made friendly noises and led one to believe that he accepted the general spirit behind the points which I then made. I hope that he will now give rather more concrete support to my suggestion by accepting the Amendment.
It was suggested that the object of the Amendment was implicit in the Bill, but, having read and reread the Bill on a

number of occasions, I am not at all clear that it is implicit and I ask the right hon. Gentleman seriously to consider accepting the Amendment which could do the Bill no harm and could certainly improve it.
12.30 a.m.
From the discussion on the second new Clause at the beginning of today's debate, it was quite clear that there is general acceptance of the principle that, where an amalgamation takes place, the outgoing farmer or seller of land should be given every opportunity to stay in his house. If the man who sells to amalgamate can stay in his house, it will facilitate and encourage amalgamations.
In some cases, it will be quite impracticable for the seller of land to remain in his house, but, where an elderly farmer is retiring, only too often he would like to remain in his farmhouse for the rest of his days and continue to watch the land being farmed by his neighbour. There may be cases of smaller farms where the farmyard is directly behind the house and many buildings which continue to be used after amalgamation are adjacent to the dwellinghouse on the farm being sold.
In a large number of cases, it should be possible, by building a wall, erecting a fence, or perhaps making a short new access road, for the seller to continue occupying the house without interrupting the activities of the buyer on the combined holding. This Amendment, by inserting the word "dwellings" will allow such building of walls or fences or the making of a short piece of new access lane, and will make quite clear that they are eligible for the 50 per cent. subsidy payable in the course of amalgamations. I think that the House accepts that the seller should have an opportunity to remain in the house. The House should also accept that reasonable amounts of money spent on making this a practicable proposition should attract a subsidy. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will accept the Amendment or give a categorical assurance that the intention of the Amendment is implicit in the Bill.

Mr. John Mackie: I agree that the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) raised this question under another Amendment in Committee and


that the intention behind this Amendment is to establish that a grant under an amalgamation scheme can be paid to an amalgamator for separating from his new amalgamated unit any house and land retained by the outgoer.
I gladly assure hon. Members that the provisions of sub-paragraph (i) of Clause 26(3,b), as they stand already cover this and that no further Amendment is needed. I know I made what the hon. Member called appreciative noises during the Committee stage of the Bill, but I am advised that that is the case and that no Amendment is needed.
We shall be prepared to consider for grant any work undertaken by the amalgamator on the vendor's land in order to allow the vendor to remain without undue inconvenience, in the same way as we would consider work carried out by a landowner who owned both the farms concerned.
All these classes of work connected with separating the house retained by the outgoer will be treated along the lines I have indicated and come within the existing wording of the Clause since in this context—and this is the crucial point —the word "land" in line 6 is to be construed as including buildings on the land. I hope that the hon. Member will accept that no Amendment on the lines he has suggested is needed.

Mr. Henry Clark: In view of the clear statement by the Parliamentary Secretary, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 29, line 38, at the end to insert:
(9) The provisions of this section shall apply to amalgamations of county council smallholdings in the same way as in regard to any other amalgamation of agricultural land.
This Amendment is designed specifically to deal with county council smallholdings. Having listened to, and taken part a short time ago, in a debate initiated by one of our Liberal colleagues, I am sure that after hearing what they had to say then they will be supporting us most warmly on this Amendment. It deals solely with small units. It seems quite wrong that if small units coming into

amalgamation should be covered, county council holdings should not.
We have had the advantage of the Wise Committee's Report on smallholdings, but we have not had a chance to debate it yet and it might have helped us materially in relation to this Amendment had we done so. We have seen the recommendations of the Committee and it is generally accepted that the concept of the smallholding, as it originally developed, has had to change with economic changes and changes in methods of production.
There has been a tendency, with the active participation and encouragement of the Government of the day—and this applied to Governments of both sides—to encourage county council smallholding committees to bring together some of their smallest holdings and to make much larger units of them, either intermediate or commercial. This has been happening over a number of years and it is surely right that county council smallholdings should receive the advantages of this Clause as much as any other agricultural units.
If they are not to do so, it appears to be a form of discrimination against a particular type of unit which has always had favourable consideration from Governments of different complexions. It would be very strange if the Joint Parliamentary Secretary were to tell us that it was not the intention of the Government to accept this Amendment. I hope that he will welcome it warmly as being something obviously desirable and constructive, which will help the small man, about whom we are all so concerned. This is an opportunity for the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to show his generous nature. We know that he has a generous nature but we want him to show conclusively his appreciation of this point.
It is not necessary for me to elaborate this matter at length in the light of the discussions that we had earlier about the desirability of seeing that there is some provision to hold the smaller units. I am sure that the whole House agrees that this is right in itself and that it would be wrong to wait until we have legislation based on the Wise Committee's Report, since we have no indication when such legislation will be brought forward. This would be discriminating against the county council smallholdings. I hope


that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will not use this argument—I would be very worried if he did.
This Clause deals with the small and uncommercial units and if it deals with those outside the scope of the county council it should deal with those within it. Since the case is so strong I will not elaborate further.

Mr. Jasper More (Ludlow): I support my right hon. Friend. It is not fair that those who are responsible for administering our county council smallholdings should be left at this stage entirely in the dark about the Government's intentions in regard to the participation which these county council smallholdings can have under the Bill.
The Wise Committee's Report, to which my right. hon. Friend referred, makes certain recommedations which, if adopted, imply an appreciable change in the policy which has governed county council smallholding in the past. Whether or not those recommendations are put into force, the fact remains that county council smallholdings have, for about 80 years, played en important part in the structure of our agricultural industry, and they are bound to continue doing so.
Their administration is now a matter of considerable difficulty and complexity, involving the exercise of difficult judgments and decisions by those who have to administer them. It cannot possibly be right that when we have an important Bill, dealing with the specific question of the small farms in this country, it should be allowed to go through without anything being said about this most important section, the county council smallholdings.
Some of us in the Standing Committee tackled the Minister on this subject, but the issue was simply not faced. All that we had from the Minister was the statement that it would be very wrong in Committee to make a statement of major policy on the Wise Committee itself. Then follows the sentence:
I am being wise now."—(OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 25th October, 1966; c. 760.]
I am not absolutely certain that we on this side of the House would agree with that. The point really is, surely, that this Bill having been brought forward, dealing with this most important

subject of the future of smallholdings, it cannot be right that we should pass it without anything being said by the Government as to the intended effect on this most important sector, the county council smallholdings. I beg to support my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Hawkins: I have been interested in smallholdings ever since I went on the Norfolk Committee in 1949. Ever since then we have been trying to improve our estate, which is the largest in the country, by the process of buying land and adding to the various farms, and giving larger holdings to the smallholders on the farms.
More recently we have been unable, due to the financial situation, to buy any land to add to holdings. As smallholders have died or retired, we have, where necessary, amalgamated holdings and put some of the smaller units together to make more viable holdings for the remaining tenants. That is not what we wanted to do, because we wanted to retain the greatest number of smallholders on the estate, but it seemed the best policy in the circumstances.
It is a very expensive business to put together some of these smallholdings. It involves quite considerable alterations to boundaries and buildings, and it would seem wrong if we, the smallholding committees were unable to get the benefit of the amalgamation grants. I raised this matter in Committee on two or three occasions and received no satisfactory answer. I gave evidence to the Wise Committee, and the Wise Committee has reported, but it will be some time before we know what will ultimately be recommended, and it will be much longer before any legislation is introduced.
It seems to be quite wrong that the smallholding committees shall be without the right to claim amalgamation grants on the amalgamations which will take place from the time this Act becomes law until the Wise Committee's recommendations are embodied in legislation. In Col. 799 of the Standing Committee's Report, the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
I could not answer that off the cuff.
I had asked about the question of grants. He said:
I would not like to give a ruling today as to whether they will qualify or not. It will be like all schemes.


I do not know what that meant—
One has to consider each one separately as it is made. Therefore, I would not like to answer that point today".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th October, 1966; c. 799.]
Many days have passed since 27th October. I hope that we shall now have a satisfactory answer.

12.45 a.m.

Mr. Hector Monro: I make the same plea in regard to the Department of Agriculture smallholdings in Scotland, which number about 1,900 and of which about 20 are amalgamated each year. Will the Parliamentary Secretary or the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland tell us whether these grants are to be available for amalgamations in the coming year?

Mr. John Mackie: I appreciate the point made by the Amendment, but I think that it would be wrong to tie our hands to one particular way of grant-aiding the amalgamation of smallholdings before we have examined smallholdings policy generally in the light of the findings of the Wise Committee. It was the Government of the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) who appointed the Wise Committee. We do not wish to be discourteous to it. It did a tremendous amount of work and took a long time to prepare its Report. It would be wrong not to give it full consideration.
As everyone knows, the Committee's First Report, on general smallholdings policy and the statutory smallholdings provided by local authorities for letting to the agricultural workers, was published last April, and consultations are taking place on it. The Report recommends grant-aid for reorganising the existing statutory smallholdings into fewer and larger full-time farms. These would provide opportunities for keen, well qualified young men who will be of benefit to the long-term interests of the technically advanced agriculture of the future.
These proposals are not inconsistent with the objectives of the farm structure provisions of Part II of the Bill. We are considering whether some special arrangements of the kind recommended by the Wise Committee would be a more suitable alternative to the general incentives provided for in the Bill.
The Wise Committee is now reviewing the smallholdings estates managed for the Minister by the Land Settlement Association. The position of these smallholdings in relation to the farm structure proposals in the Bill will be considered when the Committee's report is available.
I think that against this background, it would be wrong at this stage to decide whether the amalgamation provisions of this Bill are the right ones to help smallholdings. If they turn out to be suitable, it will be possible to apply them without amending the Bill, so there need be no delay. But if other arrangements prove more appropriate we want to feel free to adopt them, unfettered by any prior decision such as is contemplated under this Amendment.
I am sure that the House appreciates this point, in spite of the slightly exaggerated observations of the right hon. Gentleman, and I urge rejection of the Amendment in order to keep the Bill flexible on this question.

Mr. Hawkins: What is to happen about amalgamations of county council smallholdings between the time when the Bill becomes law and the time when the Wise Committee's recommendations are put into legislation? Can a county council claim grant for any amalgamations it carries out immediately after the Bill becomes law?

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman asked us that question and we sent him a fairly complete reply. I have just been handed a copy of the letter. If that does not satisfy him, I cannot give him a further answer tonight.

Mr. Monro: As the Wise Committee does not affect Scotland, can the hon. Gentleman give the information for which I asked in regard to the Department of Agriculture smallholdings?

Mr. Mackie: Not without notice.

Mr. Godber: The Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply was very inadequate. It was extraordinary, particularly after my hon. Friend pointed out that his hon. Friend who spoke in Committee indicated that he could not give an answer off the cuff, the implication being that an answer could be provided. The answer which we have had is no answer. This means that the county council smallholders will be placed at a disadvantage until such


time as the Government have finished brooding over the Report and have produced something from it.
If the hon. Gentleman can give us a firm undertaking that before the end of the present Session the Government will introduce legislation to deal with smallholdings, we would be prepared—although even then, there would be delay before it came into effect—to accept the point he has made. If, however, the hon. Gentleman is talking about possible legislation in the dim and distant future, it is grossly unfair that no provision should be made in the Bill.
The hon. Gentleman has not made his case in saying that the Amendment would be restrictive or limiting. The position could easily be taken account of in any new legislation specifically related to smallholdings. If necessary, the provision which we seek to write in could be amended in that new legislation if it were found to run counter to the proposals that are required.
We are asking for something now to put these people on the same basis as other small units. The Minister's reply is intolerable. He has failed very badly in regard to these small units. His answer has been completely unsatisfactory. I hope that even now further thought will be given to the matter and that something will be done in another place. Otherwise there is gross unfairness in regard to these small units.

Mr. Stodart: The Parliamentary Secretary replied to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) that he would not answer my hon. Friend's question without notice. I should like to say two things. First, the hon. Gentleman has had notice in the interval which has elapsed. Secondly, it is only right that I should extend a welcome to the new Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, the hon. Member for Renfrew, West (Mr. Buchan), who is occupying his position on the Government Front Bench for the first time. There is, therefore, a representative present from the Scottish Office. I have no doubt that the information is available to him. If either he or the Parliamentary Secretary could give my hon. Friend the information, it would be right that we should have it.

Mr. John Mackie: I would like to reply to the right hon. Member for

Grantham (Mr. Godber), who expressed what I would almost call synthetic indignation.

Mr. Godber: Not at all.

Mr. Mackie: The right hon. Gentleman has repeatedly attacked us for not consulting people or for not giving due consideration to Reports and various pieces of legislation that we have taken in hand. I am sorry that I have not looked up the papers to find examples of this—I did not expect the right hon. Gentleman to be so unreasonable—but I could easily do so.
The Wise Report is important and covers a great number of people. To treat it, as the right hon. Gentleman suggests, by putting forward an Amendment to override it completely, which is what the Amendment would do—[Interruption.] I listened carefully to the right hon. Gentleman, who is muttering at me. If he wishes to intervene, I will give way to him.

Mr. Godber: The hon. Gentleman misrepresents completely what I said. What I put to the House was that it would not run counter to any proposal that he would later wish to bring forward. If he proposes later to bring forward legislation relating to the Wise Report, there will be nothing to prevent him taking into account in relation to that legislation any Amendment which is written in at this stage or, if he seeks to go much further, amending specifically this point. I am seeking to fill the large gap which exists and which the hon. Gentleman cannot cover up.

Mr. Mackie: As to the time factor, I assure the right hon. Gentleman that it will not necessarily have any effect. I said in my reply to the Amendment that if the amalgamation provisions turn out to be suitable, it will be possible to apply them without amending the Bill, but that if other arrangements are more appropriate we want to feel free to adopt them, unfettered by any prior decision such as the Amendment contemplates. I stick to that. I do not propose to go into greater detail on what I said earlier. I repeat that we must not ignore what the Wise Committee stated, remembering that we have yet to deal with the second part of that Committee's Report.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 27.—(GRANTS FOR INDIVIDUALS RELINQUISHING OCCUPATION OF UNCOMMERCIAL UNITS.)

Mr. Henry Clark: I beg to move, Amendment No. 41, in page 31, line 9, at the end to insert:
(d) may allow income derived from land taken under a short-term letting to be included with an individual's income from the land he relinquishes for the purposes of a test under the last preceding subsection.
It might be convenient if, with this Amendment, we considered the following Amendment No. 42, in line 9, at end insert:
(e) shall not exclude an individual who relinquishes an uncommercial unit which provides when farmed under reasonably skilled management employment for one man on one hundred days per year.

Mr. Speaker: If there is no objection. so be it.

Mr. Clark: The Amendment has been tabled in an effort to adapt, as far as is possible, this part of the Bill to the land tenure system existing in Northern Ireland. This is not the place, nor this the hour, to detail the unfortunate effects which the imposition of an English land tenure system has had in Northern Ireland, although I spoke for a considerable time in Standing Committee on this issue There were occasions in Committee when I suspected that some hon. Gentlemen opposite had lost track of the subject although it is of great interest to my hon. Friends.
I will jump the first 300 years of Irish history and merely comment that we were left at the end of the last century by the Land Acts a very large number of small, individually owned holdings and virtually no leasehold farms as such holdings are known in this country. The factor which makes this system of a large number of very small holdings work satisfactorily is that as well as individually owned holdings, we have a widespread system of annual letting; a system known as the "conacre". I notice the use of the expression "conacre" in a Government Amendment. Perhaps I have achieved something; at least I have educated the Ministry in the use of a piece of good English. I begin to think that our 26 sittings in Committee have not been entirely wasted.
The "conacre" system is a simple one. Land is let for 11 months in the year and it can be let not only for grazing but for any arable purpose. These lettings bring in rents of from £5 to £18 a year, depending on the land, its state, the state of the fences and the crop grown on it. The result is that a young and active farmer may frequently own only 10 or 15 acres, but will take on an annual letting—he may take the same land year after year—of 20 or 30 acres. He will, therefore, actively farm 30 or 40 acres, although he owns only 10 or 15 acres.
1 a.m.
This is the case with which the first Amendment is designed to deal. Quite obviously, if a young, active farmer is taking in land to increase his holding, we have, at the same time, the more elderly farmer who is thinking of retiring on the rents he obtains by letting his land, or part of it, to more active neighbours. We may very well have a farmer who is farming, perhaps, only two or three acres of land of his own, with a few hens and pigs, but who in his heyday was farming some 30 or 40 acres. As I see it, both the old farmer who is letting off some of his land and the younger farmer who owns only a very small holding but farms quite a large area are people who come well within the definition contained in the White Paper.
That is the only definition we have had of the Government's intentions. In the Standing Committee we heard remarkably little of their intentions. Both men come within the third category in paragraph 3 of the White Paper, which states:
The Government therefore propose to offer these men help in three ways…
and the third way is:
…to resettle or retire from farming where they want to give up an unrewarding struggle.
I would not myself use those words, but I want to see that the older farmer who retires can do so in a reasonably dignified manner, if not prosperous at least with a comfortable level of income.
I equally believe that the young active man who owns only a small amount of land hut who farms 30 or 40 acres, and who wants to give up what the Government call the "unrewarding struggle",
should have every incentive to move into another profession and settle in it with the same benefits as any other farmer. I have put down these Amendments because both those people could be eliminated from schemes under this Clause. That is why Amendment No. 41 states that a scheme
…may allow come derived from land taken under a short-term letting to be included with an individual's income from the land he relinquishes for the purposes of a test under the last preceding subsection.
The last preceding subsection is (c), which states that a scheme under this Clause
…may apply to the individual a test by reference t0 the income…derived from land the occupation of which he relinquishes…
What that test will be we had no indication in Committee, so without that information we must try to protect ourselves and make certain that the test does not work in the wrong way. The man who owns 10 acres and actually farms 30 acres gets only one-third of his income from the land he relinquishes, and if the test—and we do not know what it is—is applied in a particular way, that young, active farmer could well not get the benefits which this Clause seeks to give him.
This is perhaps an obscure point to those who do not know the Northern Ireland system of farming. I believe that it is unique to Northern Ireland, and is not experienced anywhere else in the United Kingdom, but it is a completely relevant point, and one on which I hope I shall get a satisfactory reply from the Minister. The most satisfactory reply would be simple acceptance of the Amendment.
The second case is that of the farmer who has been very active in his day but has now retired, living on his land, perhaps 10 or 15 acres, with a little from the farmyard. We want to give that man a descent and respectable retirement. In fact, though the White Paper does not say so, it quotes various Continental schemes for the retiring farmer, and anyone who has studied these things knows that in most Continental schemes there are specific pensions for retiring old farmers. Very often these people are women who live on the relatively small holding. They may be the widows of farmers who have died some time ago.
These are the very last people who should be excluded from the scheme. But on the second page of the White Paper we read in paragraph 7(a):
A minimum size of business would have to be laid down to exclude holdings which are not genuine farms…
We have had no indication of what that minimum size would be. In Committee I suggested a minimum size, which was rejected by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary because he said that he did not believe in defining sizes in terms of acres. I have taken his advice and in Amendment No. 42 I have suggested a minimum size of 100 man days. I did this after consultation with the Ulster Farmers' Union which is very familiar with these conditions, and we agreed that this would he the minimum size—a farm of eight to 10 acres.
I hope the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will be able to accept both these Amendments. They improve the application of this part of the Bill to the conditions in Northern Ireland. If he does not accept them, there is a real chance that when the schemes are applied, injustice will be done.

The Marquess of Hamilton: I wish briefly to reinforce the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark), and I hope that the Government will accept these two extremely important Amendments.
The Government should appreciate and accept that farm structure and tenure in Northern Ireland are completely different from anywhere else in the United Kingdom. As my hon. Friend has said, we have no landlord and tenant system. In its place we have short-term letting known as the conacre system forced upon the industry by the size of farm holding.
There is a tremendous disparity between the size of farm holding in Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom. In England the average size is 80 acres; in Northern Ireland it is 32 acres. In my constituency there are many holdings of not more than 10 to 15 acres. Therefore, a small farmer is forced to take land on a short-term letting in order to provide a livelihood for himself. Very often at least two-thirds of his income is derived from these "conacre" lettings. As the Bill stands, the income derived
from the letting could exclude the tenant from paragraph (c), which would be grossly unfair, due to prevailing circumstances in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Hoy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) for raising this matter. We discussed it in Committee, and tonight he has had the additional support of a noble Lord.
While I sympathise with the intention behind the hon. Member's first Amendment, we must keep in mind what we are trying to achieve. The aim of the grants under Clause 27 will be to assist those who are dependent on small farms and wish to give up the land for amalgamation. In Great Britain land can only be let for less than a year with the Minister's consent or on a mowing or grazing licence. Someone who takes land on a short-term letting does not depend on it for his living, nor does he need help to give it up. He may not even be able to rent it again. The land is not a permanent part of his farm and does not contribute regularly to his income. On the other hand, an elderly farmer who rents out land for a short period to one neighbour or another may indeed depend for his regular income on that land. The land forms part of his farm, and when he regains occupation could be given up for amalgamation by him, along with the rest of his land. I am afraid that we could not see our way to count such land also as part of the regular income of any neighbour who may rent it for a short period.
If hon. Members will think this out, they will see the reason why.

Mr. Henry Clark: I should be very interested to have some details of the test which is to be applied to income under subsection (3).

Mr. Hoy: I was dealing with the general issue. If one takes the case of an elderly farmer who rented out part of his land, then what we are saying is that, when he took it back he would be able to sell it along with the rest of the land and make up an amalgamation. Quite obviously, the other man would have rented it for a particular purpose. The land had reverted to the farmer, and in the second Amendment, the hon. Gentleman said that quite clearly there should be a lower limit on the size of an

uncommercial unit whose relinquishment could qualify an applicant for grant under this Clause. Let me put it another way —and I suspect that this is what the hon. Member really has in mind—by saying that the Amendment would set an upper limit on the size of uncommercial unit which could be excluded from an outgoer's grant.
Three points have to be considered here: whether such a limit should be imposed and, if so, what it should be, and where it should be specified. I think that it is generally agreed that there should be provision for such a limit, and we intend to set such a limit in the first statutory scheme.
So far as the level at which any limit should be set is concerned, I must tell the House that I would rather not commit myself at this stage. We have already said in Standing Committee that an acreage limitation would be inappropriate because land varies so much in quality. Standard man-days would obviously be preferable, and I would agree that, to this extent, the Amendment is on something like the right lines. I would also agree that the level of a 100 man-days suggested in the Amendment is reasonable, and I promise to bear it in mind, but I do not think that it would be right to put that figure in the Bill and be tied to it inexorably for the life of this legislation. The place for this sort of detail is in the statutory schemes to be made under this Clause, because we want to be able to adjust conditions in successive schemes if conditions at the time require this.
I can tell the House that there need be no fears that any limit set will be at such a level as to exclude real farms on which the occupier is mainly dependent for his livelihood, but which he needs help to leave. One of the prime objects of the farm structure proposals is to give assistance to such people, and it would be against our interests to exclude them.
I hope that the House will agree that the Bill should be as flexible as possible on this point. I gladly repeat my assurance to bear in mind the limit suggested when the first statutory scheme is made, and I ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: The Parliamentary Secretary will remember that I lent him some


of my support in Standing Committee when speaking of the acreage qualification, because I agree with him that one can get so badly misled when one is thinking in terms of acreages. That is simply because acres differ so very much. On the other hand, I have a certain amount of sympathy, and more, with my hon. Friend, because having gone against my hon. Friend in Committee I had hoped that the Parliamentary Secretary would feel able to accept the Amendment which my hon. Friend has now put forward, which is really very much in line with what the Parliamentary Secretary himself suggested. He said:
What we have in mind is a minimum in terms of standard man-days—…—perhaps half of a man's time, or something like that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th October, 1966; c. 777.]
That is pretty well what my hon. Friend has put down.
1.15 a.m.
I agree that the Parliamentary Secretary has said that this is very much the way his mind is working, but I think that it is always a good thing to accept Amendments now and again. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary thinks otherwise. But as we have the virtual assurance that that is what will happen in the scheme I dare say that we should be thankful for small mercies and leave it at that.

Mr. Henry Clark: I thank the Parliamentary Secretary for the very thoughtful and careful way in which he replied. In answer to one point he raised, I would point out that my second Amendment seeks to state an upper limit to small farms which might be excluded. I should like a fairly firm assurance that it will he a very small farm indeed that will be excluded from this. It is particularly the words in the White Paper which give me some reason for doubt:
A minimium size of business would have to be laid down to exclude holdings which are not genuine farms;
One can have a genuine farm of very small size in Northern Ireland—well under 10 acres. It has given me some qualms to hear various hon. Members speaking of small farms of 30, 40 and even 80 and 100 acres. Those are large farms by our standards. In view of the answer, I do not particularly want to press the Amendment, although I think

that it would considerably improve the Bill.
I am not entirely content with the reply to the first of my Amendments. The object of the Bill, as stated in the White Paper, is to help people who want to give up what the White Paper calls "the unrewarding struggle" and to be resettled.
The man I hypothesised, who owns 10 acres and who has regularly farmed about 30 acres each year by taking land in on annual letting, is a genuine farmer who gains the whole of his livelihood by farming and wishes to get out of farming. When he leaves farming, that 30 acres he has farmed year by year will become available for amalgamation with other units. I believe that there is a very strong case for that man not being excluded, and I am not certain from the Parliamentary Secretary's reply that the test under subsection (2,c) would not exclude him.
Under that test, as I understand it, the man who is receiving only one-third of his income from the land he relinquishes could be excluded. I believe that if Amendment No. 41 is not accepted we may find that subsection (2,c) does quite considerable injustice to people in Northern Ireland. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to look at this again and, if he is prepared to say that he will do so, I would be prepared to withdraw the Amendment and hope that something might be done in another place.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that I made our views on this explicitly clear. I said that a man who had let out a farm or a part of a farm might want to get out of farming, and it would be possible for him then to sell the farm as a whole for amalgamation purposes. He might be an old farmer who wished to do this. But there is a great difference in saying to a man who only rents land that these conditions will apply to him in respect of all that land—which is not a permanent part of his farm. We do not have the right to do this. Those two cases are quite different.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Henry Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 31, line 28, at the end to insert:
(7) The Minister shall have regard to the current level of rents for short-term letting and


current land prices in fixing level of grants in any scheme under this section.
This Amendment seeks to bring the Minister's policy as stated in the White Paper more into line with the actual reality of farm values. It is fortunate that it comes so close after the others that I have just dealt with because I have been able to tell the House a certain amount about the circumstances that exist, and my noble Friend has been able to help the House as well. We have a peculiar system of land tenure in Northern Ireland and in many cases a particularly high level of annual lettings.
In the case of a small farmer with 20 acres who is largely retired and is living on the land which he lets annually, the 20 acres could well produce £200–£300 a year. But if he sells the 20 acres, under the level of grants laid down in the White Paper he will either be worse off, or only marginally better off, and he ceases to be a landowner. The level of grant in the White Paper provides remarkably little incentive for the man to sell up.
Though I am anxious that the man who sells his land should continue to stay in his house, in a large number of cases it will prove to be impossible and the man will have to find a house elsewhere, and the capital value of the farm that he sells will only just provide him with a reasonable house off the farm. Therefore, the man with 20 acres who is leaving the land will have a very small pittance. He will get his £100 and £1 per acre—£120 per annum—and he will probably have enough money to get himself a house. But even if he is able to invest the capital sum that he gets through selling the farm he will not be particularly well off.
It is worth remembering that a very large number of people who might be in this situation have been excluded from the old-age pension arrangements and in many cases equally well excluded from National Assistance because of the ownership of capital, so if they accepted the scheme and compensation at the rates laid down, they would find themselves worse off in many ways than they were before they sold the farm. Unless the levels of compensation are raised—they should be double those suggested in the White Paper—I do not think that the scheme will be successful.
I went on record in Committee saying that we do not want a revolution in the farming of Northern Ireland. We do not want 2,000 amalgamations a year. We want at most twice the 700 or so amalgamations that now take place each year in Northern Ireland. If we are to get a higher level of amalgamations than at present a higher level of grant must be given. If an annuity were paid to a farmer for relinquishing his farm of £200 plus £2 per acre we should be making the payments under the scheme conform to the value of annual letting of a farm. I believe that if the Minister looks carefully at the value of land and at the rents that are received for short-term letting in Northern Ireland, he will see that the amounts laid down in the White Paper are insufficient to make the scheme work effectively.

The Marquess of Hamilton: Clearly the Minister must think again about the proposed scale of compensation for the so-called "golden handshake". In Northern Ireland, there will be few takers at the present scale. I doubt whether it will tilt the balance towards decisions already made in principle. Due to the credit squeeze and the Government's harsh deflationary measures, there is at least 10 per cent. unemployment in most rural areas of my constituency. As a result, farmers will be far more reluctant to accept this "golden handshake" than their equivalents in England, for they would find it much more difficult to obtain alternative employment.
The proposed scale is clearly inadequate and if the Minister is really determined for this scheme to prove successful then the lump sum should be increased by 50 per cent. and the pension rate raised to the equivalent of £5 per week for life.

Mr. Hoy: I shall not attempt to go into the question of unemployment in Northern Ireland, which has nothing to do with these provisions. It was quite unworthy of the noble Marquess, the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (The Marquess of Hamilton) to introduce an argument of that kind at this time of the morning.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) did manage to refer to the White Paper. What the White Paper proposed and the final figures


arrived al are different matters. It will depend on the terms which will help people to do certain things. What the hon. Gentleman is seeking is an assurance that we will review the rates of grant from time to time in order to ensure that they remain in line with the general level of prices and offer a reasonable inducement. I gladly give that assurance.
But it is not so obvious that it is the level of rents and land prices that will determine what constitutes a reasonable incentive. There are still a large number of elderly tenant farmers who may wish to take advantage of these grants. Not everyone owns land he can let. We shall, therefore, fix the rates at whatever level we consider reasonable from time to time.
I would also say that it would be most unfair to people who take advantage of the scheme if we changed the rates too often or too sharply. We shall therefore try to fix a reasonable figure in the first scheme and keep to it for a considerable time. I gladly give the assurance the hon. Gentleman seeks and I hope that he will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: I am a little surprised by what the Joint Parliamentary Secretary has said because he has given the clear impression that the rates quoted in the White Paper and those which may be paid may be different. In Committee he said:
If the proposals in the White Paper are not considered reasonable, I am a little surprised that no suggestions have been put forward. We put our proposals down in the White Paper because obviously some guidance had to be given to people to let them know the lines along which we were thinking."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 27th October, 1966; c. 795.]
I drew the conclusion from that—and I am relieved to find it wrong—that the rates were, more or less, within possible slight variations, to be the rates in question.
Neither I nor my right hon. Friend have ever failed to say that, while we approve of the general principle of amalgamations and of these grants, we are not happy about the levels proposed in the White Paper. We have always felt that, as my hon. Friends have said, they would not be high enough to do the job intended. However, if I now inter-

pret the hon. Gentleman differently—and I am not saying that it was not my fault if I interpreted him incorrectly—I am glad to hear that there may well be substantial increases over the level of grants announced in the White Paper.

1.30 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: I do not want to mislead hon. Members. I said that there might be changes. We discussed this subject very fully in Committee and I remember one hon. Member opposite saying that he thought that the figures which we had produced were just about right. There has been this difference of opinion. We shall have to wait and see what the final figures are. I was asked for an assurance that they would remain in line with the general level of prices and offer a reasonable inducement, and I said that I gladly gave that assurance. These things will be taken into account when the arrangements are made.

Mr. Henry Clark: The Parliamentary Secretary has made one or two comments which will bear reply. He is quite right in thinking that in this Amendment I tried to tie the grants and the lump sums to some reasonably flexible yardstick which would bring them close to reality and close to the level which the man concerned could expect to get from an annual letting. I am thinking largely of Northern Ireland and a large percentage of cases will be in Northern Ireland, but these things will be relevant to any man contemplating leaving his farm and trying to find another job somewhere else, just as they will be to the man who is thinking of retiring.
I am rather surprised by the slightly synthetic indignation which the Parliamentary Secretary directed towards my noble Friend the Member for Fermanagh and South Tyrone (The Marquess of Hamilton). The question of unemployment is directly relevant and if the Parliamentary Secretary does not understand that, then he has no business being in his present job. My noble Friend was not exaggerating when he spoke of 10 per cent. unemployment. There are parts of my constituency where the unemployment rate runs at about 15 per cent. Leaving a farm may mean moving one's home 50 or 60 miles to an area where jobs are available. The level of unemployment in


an area is therefore directly relevant and the lump sums or annuities must be fixed according to the difficulty of obtaining alternative employment.
In the context of what is a realistic level of annuities and grants, it is worth remembering that those people who are being paid off from the Ulster Transport Authority, now that it is being denationalised and the staff being cut to a more reasonable size, are receiving compensation payments of between £1,000 and £1,500. They are people in the age group 50 to 65 and they are often the brothers and cousins of the farmers whom we are here proposing to compensate. I cannot believe that stationmasters and firemen and signalmen who are made redundant are entitled to receive very much more than the small farmers who are made redundant by the policies of the Government of the day.
The Minister will have to tie these grants to a reasonable level. I shall look at tomorrow's HANSARD with considerable interest, because it might contain a classic. At one point the Parliamentary Secretary said that any resemblance between what appeared in the White Paper and what was actually done was entirely coincidental, or words almost to that effect.

Mr. Hoy: indicated dissent.

Mr. Clark: They were words very similar to that. However, the Amendment has given us the opportunity to press home on the Government the need for giving realistic amounts and, equally, for keeping those amounts adjusted to the steadily rising cost of living, and in view of what has been said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 28.—(LOANS TO ASSIST AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment 44, in page 32, line 24, after 'their', insert 'written'.
The purpose of this Amendment is to bring this subsection into line with the corresponding one in Clause 26.
It has always been the intention that the consents required under this Clause to the application of Schedule 3 to the relevant unit should be in writing as required in the corresponding subsection of Clause 26. This Amendment will

ensure that the two Clauses are identical and remove any uncertainty that might otherwise occur.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment 45, in page 32, line 35, after 'cost', insert 'or so much thereof as the appropriate Minister may determine'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sidney Irving): With this Amendment it would be convenient to discuss Amendment No. 46.

Mr. Hoy: In Standing Committee some hon. Members questioned the need for the Government to be given powers to recover the cost of reinvestment of Government loan monies which are prematurely repaid as a consequence of a breach of Schedule 3 or to claim compensation for any loss arising if the rate of interest obtained on reinvestment of the loan monies is less than that on the original loan. I gave an assurance that I would consider whether some change should be made in the Clause.
I am advised that the charging of a premium or redemption fee when a loan is prematurely repaid to compensate for any loss arising on reinvestment of the monies as a result of a fall in interest rates is fully in accordance with Government practice. These conditions apply, for example, to local authority loans. The basic purpose of this provision, however, is to enable Government loans to be put on the same footing as loans given by the organisations which will be administering them. These will be the Agricultural Mortgage Corporation in the case of England and Wales and the Scottish Agricultural Securities Corporation in the case of Scotland. So far as these organisations are concerned, the charging of a redemption fee when a borrower seeks to repay a loan before the due date is a necessary and justifiable precaution to protect their financial resources.
Nevertheless, although in certain circumstances a borrower wishing to repay a loan prematurely could conceivably be liable on an actuarial basis for a heavy redemption fee, I am advised that these organisations have adopted a very reasonable policy in practice and do not claim the full premium.
It is the intention that Government loans shall be used solely to supplement


the loans made by these organisations. If the redemption fee requirement were dispensed with in the case of Government loans, or some less onerous requirement were substituted, Government loans would become more attractive to borrowers, who would seek to obtain the whole of their requirements from the Government.
Since, however, it is not the Government's intention to compete with the A.M.C. and the S.A.S.C. for business, it is clearly desirable that the terms and conditions attaching to Government loans should be on all fours with those of these organisations.
This is one of the reasons why we could not, for example, adopt the suggestion made by my hon. Friend the Member for Merioneth (Mr. William Edwards) that the Government loan agreement should include a variable interest clause.
I can accordingly reassure hon. Members that borrowers who wish to repay their loans prematurely can expect to receive, in respect of the Government part of the loan, redemption terms which are as reasonable as they would expect to obtain on the premature redemption of the private part of the loan. The purpose of the Amendments is to make it abundantly clear that the Minister has a discretion in these matters, and I hope this will meet with the approval of the hon. Members to whom I gave a promise.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman will remember that our discussions on this matter in Committee were extremely animated. The concession that he has made is a reasonable one, meeting the situation, about which, despite the precedents quoted to us, we felt strongly. This is probably as good a solution as we could get.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 46, in page 32, line 40, at end insert:
'or such part thereof as the appropriate Minister may determine '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Clause 30.—(GRANTS FOR LONG TERM IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL LAND).

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 48, in page 36, line 4, to leave out "land" to "and" in line 5.
The purpose of this Amendment is to derestrict one of the Clauses with regard to the payment of farm improvement grants. At present the situation is that grants cannot be paid on land on which buildings do not exist. The condition of grant is that it must be paid to land with buildings. This, I freely accept, we regarded as a cardinal condition for the Farm Improvement Scheme when it was established under the 1957 Acts.
It was right that that restriction should exist then, because buildings were principally in need of reconstruction. Here I should like to pay tribute to the work done by the staffs of the two agricultural Departments, for all the many inspections that they have made, which has virtually resulted in a complete change in the landscape.
When the grants were first made it was right to pick out the priorities and to decide that the priority in this case was only for land with buildings. I would not like anyone to think that this is a priority which should be held too rigidly throughout the years. To give one example, on the coastline where I live, between North Berwick and Dunbar, a great deal of work has been done, which would entitle the farmer who had done it to a farm improvement grant if any buildings existed on the land. They do not, as the land has been reclaimed. But we will need as much land as we can lay our hands on to cope with the increase in population—2 million extra by 1970 and a vast increase by the end of the century.
1.45 a.m.
The purpose of this Amendment is to enable work to be done by the kind of farmer I have mentioned, who is bringing into cultivation valuable acres, and who might well wish to put up a building possibly in which to store potatoes. Under the present Statute he would be debarred from getting a grant because the land in question had no buildings on it.
There are other examples that could be given, and I dare say that some of my hon. Friends may wish to give them. I believe that we are now moving into a different period, a period in which the intensive use of every acre is becoming more and more essential as each year passes. We could now afford to move away from that priority of work, of the


grant being devoted to land with buildings, and to move into the sort of sphere which I have suggested.

Mr. Prior: I should like to support very strongly the Amendment moved by my hon. Friend. In my part of the world, in Norfolk and Suffolk, there are a good many areas of marshland near the coast, all around the Broads. Some of it is in the area of the hon. Gentleman the Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell). Until the war, and even until a few years ago, a good deal of this land was either semi-derelict or in grass, but owing to new drainage and the use of electric and diesel pumps instead of the old windmills, a lot of this land can now grow very good arable crops.
Of course, there are no buildings on this land. As things are at the moment, a farmer who has improved his land, and who, in some cases, has reclaimed up to 500 or more acres in one block, finds that he is quite unable to arrange a farm improvement grant in order to put some buildings on that land.
Agricultural conditions change very rapidly. Having said that a lot of this land has been ploughed up in the last few years, we shall probably find in the next few years that this land will once more be put back to grass. With the new methods of grassland management the grass will be either zero-grazed or cut for grass-drying and taken straight into nearby buildings, because it is very bulky stuff to handle over long distances. It will then be used for feeding stock on the land.
All this leads me to suppose that these buildings should qualify for a farm improvement grant. I cannot for the life of me see that there is any justification for giving a grant on a farm which has buildings, albeit not very good buildings, but refusing a grant just because at the time of the introduction of this Measure there happened to have been no buildings there. This seems to me to be totally illogical and does not seem to make any sort of sense in any direction. If the Minister is worried that there could be unfair advantage and the Treasury is worried about the extra cash it may have to pay out, the Clause as amended would cover them. The Minister must still be satisfied that the land would yield

a sufficient living to an occupier reasonably skilled in husbandry or would be capable of doing so as a result of the improvement. The Clause will still be sufficiently strong for its purpose.
If the Government reject the Amendment, they will do so because they have not taken the trouble to think out what is involved. There was an article in the Economist a fortnight ago which pointed out that the trouble with this Government was that they were far less radical than the Conservative Government who preceded them. At every point in this Bill we see the same old things, which might have been reasonable over a number of years, trotted out again because the Government have not thought the thing through.
If the Government want to get agriculture moving and put some sense into the whole agricultural economy, they must consider this sort of point and produce a reasonable answer. The Parliamentary Secretary is a very experienced man in farming. I defy him to reject the Amendment. A man with his experience must know many examples of the case we are trying to meet, and he cannot fail to accept the Amendment as utterly reasonable. If we get no sense out of the Government on a question of this kind, it is little wonder that the country generally, and the farming community in particular, is losing confidence. By accepting the Amendment, the Government could give great assistance and increase the confidence of farmers.

Earl of Dalkeith: It is right that I should declare an interest in this matter, but I make no apology for so doing because I feel that it qualifies me to speak from experience and helps me to be constructive.
I am a little puzzled because, a little while ago, when we tried to include the word "buildings" with "land", we were told that it was unnecessary because the definition of land automatically implied that buildings would go with it. The Government cannot have it both ways. We have already had examples of land being farmed without there being buildings on it. The Parliamentary Secretary knows of farms of this kind in Scotland, particularly hill farms, and some of them fairly large. I know of one of 700 acres without a single building on it, but it is


none the less a viable farming unit. The man who lives nearest to it lives in a cottage on an adjoining farm, and it is, in fact, treated as a led farm from another farm about 12 miles away.
There are plenty of examples, and one need not quote more. The Government should accept the Amendment without further argument.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I support the Amendment because the Clause as it stands operates as an absolute bar to any improvement scheme being given in circumstances where land needs buildings to enable it to become more productive. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), I have areas of marshland in my constituency. Formerly, this land was not particularly fertile, often because of lack of drainage, but now it is being greatly improved. Nevertheless, it is not making a great contribution to the national larder because it cannot be farmed as extensively as it might be. It seems to me that the Minister could quite easily use the safeguards if the bar is removed to ensure that only suitable schemes were approved.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: It must surely be right for the Minister to accept the Amendment. There is a good deal of land which is capable of being developed for farms which does not have buildings upon it but which one day may have buildings upon it when the farming industry develops there.
I ask the Minister to consider an area in my constituency which we call the Breckland, one of the most splendid examples of reclamation of the moraine soils and silt of the glacial age which has been recovered. There are no buildings there and under the Bill this land would not be eligible for support.
I ask the Minister also to consider what, I hope, will one day be the scheme for the reclamation of the Wash. I know that this is a long way off, but I would like the hon. Gentleman to understand that in East Anglia we feel strongly about the need to tackle this problem. It could well be that if land is reclaimed in these areas—and a good deal is already being reclaimed there—under the definition in the Bill, by which money will not be available unless buildings are already there, future projects could not derive

benefit. I am sure that that is not what the Government intend.
There is, however, another and probably more important point, namely, that if the Government refuse money for land where there are no buildings, they could well defeat their purpose in one of the earlier Clauses of the Bill. In many of the areas which are subject to amalgamation, it is frequently the case that a farmer who goes out of business and seeks to sell his land to another farm may have sold off the house quite separately. We have discussed this on previous Amendments.
I happen to live in an agricultural cottage which I bought from a local farmer, who thereby forfeited all buildings on the lot of land in question. If at a future stage there should be need for amalgamation here, the portion of land from which I bought off the house would no longer be capable of attracting grant under the Bill.
If the Minister wishes amalgamations to go forward smoothly, and he accepts, I understand, the principle that in many cases houses on the land may be separated from the land itself, he must surely recognise that there will be cases where it is necessary for the grant to be available for the land as such, particularly where the building has previously been sold off separately. I hope, therefore, that being the reasonable man he is, the hon. Gentleman will appreciate the point that not in every case does land have a building with it, certainly not for the purposes of the Bill.

2.0 a.m.

Mr. Kitson: I fear that the Minister is not keeping up with the changing pattern of agriculture in some parts of the country. A number of farmers in my part of the country are retaining their houses and buildings and are selling their land, which is being bought by lowland farmers for summering their cattle. If the Amendment is not accepted they will be excluded from the benefits of Schedule 4 (5), from the
Provisions and improvement of pens and other fixed equipment for use in connection with the sheltering, gathering, marking, dipping, spraying, treatment or feeding of sheep and cattle".
This will create a serious state of affairs for the lowland farmers who are buying land on which they need to do most of


these things. I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will be accepted. If not, the Minister will be demonstrating that he does not recognise what is happening in some of the hill areas.

Mr. Hawkins: I spoke on this issue in Committee and, on that occasion, the principles involved in the Amendment were supported by the hon. Member for Wallsend (Mr. Garrett). We are considering a practical Amendment which looks to the future; to the time when land which is not fully productive now or which is being reclaimed around our coasts gets into full production. Because we are losing so much land to the building industry—for new towns, reservoirs and so on—we must ensure that every acre used for farming is fully utilised.
In Committee I referred to a case in my constituency, areas of black land between where I live—Downham Market—and Ely. Few people live in this black land area and there are few buildings. However, this is very productive land and it has come into its own in the last few years. Large crops of celery, chicory, onions and carrots are being taken off this land. But roads are urgently needed in this area so that these root crops can be speedily transported. I understand that, because there are no buildings on the land, the farmers will not get these grants.
Another anomaly concerns the marshland around the coast of Norfolk. Although in many instances land is being farmed without full drainage, without roads and probably without buildings, it appears that the farmers will not receive these grants in view of the provisions of Schedule 4 covering improvements. Presumably, one can alter an existing building and get the grant, but one cannot erect a new building, although on the land about which I am speaking it might be vitally necessary to build a grain store or barn. Would it be possible for one to erect a couple of huts and then claim the grant for a brand new large building? Although the owners of some of this land require roads rather than buildings, it seems that if they do not already have buildings, they cannot receive these grants.
Considering that unless a farmer has an existing building he cannot receive the grant and considering that some farmers want roads rather than buildings.

I trust that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, who is a practical man, will deal with this practical problem and give a practical reply, since we all desire to see every acre of land fully utilised.

Mr. John Mackie: Much has been said about my practical experience in this matter and no doubt hon. Gentlemen opposite thought that they might sway me in my view by making those remarks. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove from the Farm Improvement Scheme the "bare land" test which requires that land for the benefit of which improvements are to be carried out must be equipped with buildings.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) pointed out that the scheme was introduced in 1957. However, the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) maintained that because of the changes that had taken place since then, it was no longer a sensible scheme. I have heard it argued that the purpose of the Amendment is to allow grant to be paid on various holdings that have been run without buildings, but I would very much doubt whether there are many holdings of that type today. It is very seldom indeed that no buildings at all are required on a holding. A house is normally needed, and facilities for workers, and even stock kept in the open or over-wintered normally need a feed store. The newly developed "cow kennels" would qualify as buildings for the purposes of the Clause. Even on moors and reclaimed marshes used for summer grazing or taking a crop, animals and implements need housing in winter, and the land should be run with a properly-equipped farm.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorkshire (Mr. Kitson) mentioned hill grazings. These hill grazings will be able to qualify for 50 per cent. grants under the new schemes to be made under Clause 39. In many of these schemes, many of the things the hon. Member mentioned, such as shelters for sheep, etc., would qualify for grants, and they are not buildings in the accepted sense of the word. The only real effect of admitting bare land would therefore be to let in improvements on accommodation land or reclaimed marshland not regularly occupied with an equipped farm. I want to outline some of the arguments against this—

Mr. Kitson: This would not apply to marginal land, which is very similar to hill land in our part of the world. It would not apply to that land.

Mr. Mackie: No, it would not apply to that land, but it applies to hill land improvement schemes.
I should mention that the number of such cases where all the other tests of the scheme would be met are thought to be very few. Next, the extension would depart from the principle of improving "farms" and move into that of improving land as such even though it would not normally be regarded as a unit of owner-occupation.
Then, again, without these words in the Clause people would expect us to be prepared to admit large-scale reclamation from the sea and to equip bare land fully with buildings. An hon. Member mentioned the Wash. The plan there is not to reclaim it but to use it for a water supply in order to save reservoirs in various parts of the country at the present time—

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The Minister rather alarms me, and I am sure he will alarm many people in East Anglia, by his vagueness on this enormously important question. Of course, the intention is that the Wash will provide reservoirs, but a good deal is also to be held as being reclaimed—around Sandringham, for example—for agricultural land.

Mr. Mackie: That may be. I simply make the point that the bulk of the Wash, if the policy is put across, is to make it a reservoir, not to reclaim it for farm land, and not to equip the areas he knows well about. To do this would be to go well beyond what the Farm Improvement Scheme is intended to do.
This is the difficulty we are up against in allowing the equipping of bare land. It could encourage the splitting up of farms and discourage the amalgamation of bare land with an equipped farm which, in many cases, is the proper thing to do with bare land and an equipped farm. It is almost impossible to do that, I know, but it is better than re-equipping the whole thing and encouraging the smaller units to split up. It is the best way of dealing with it in the long term

in all these reclamations, and they are not very large areas. As the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) says there could be areas like the Wash, in which case we would have to look at it again.
Anything like the suggestion contained in the Amendment would run counter to the farm structure proposals. If we attempted to exclude land which had been severed from an existing farm we would have to introduce complicated provisions about former ownership into a scheme we have always tried to keep simple. I would emphasise that to bring in this provision, or to accept the Amendment, would complicate the situation considerably, could lead to the splitting of farms and, as I have said, would run counter to the farm structure scheme. These are overwhelming reasons against dealing in this way with what I do not think is a major problem meantime, and against making the change suggested by the Amendment. I must therefore ask the House to reject it.

Mr. Prior: With the leave of the House, I should like to answer a few of the points made by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. It struck me that he was making the sort of speech that all Government spokesman make from time to time. Whenever they have a poor argument and they are not convinced by it they put their heads down and read out the brief, hoping for the best. That is exactly what the Parliamentary Secretary did. I know the hon. Gentleman better than that. He does not believe a word of what he was reading, and, what is more, he read it as if he did not believe it.
I can imagine the scene as yesterday morning when the Department were going through these Amendments. The Minister was thinking "What can I say about this one?" and a civil servant came along and said "Well, Minister, you could say that this will lead to large-scale reclamations from the sea. This would encourage people to reclaim from the sea and we cannot afford to have people doing that."
I have never heard such far-fetched reasons in an effort to justify what the Parliamentary Secretary and everyone else in the House knows to be a perfectly sensible and reasonable Amendment. If the Minister argues, as he does, that there


are not many types of holdings of this nature, surely that is an even better reason for allowing the Amendment to be accepted. If there were thousands of these units all over the land, it could be argued that it would be too costly, that it might lead to splitting up of units and so on. But not a bit of it. The Minister says that there are not many of these about. We all know that there are quite a few, but I should have thought that the fact that there are only a few would support our argument.
It is very disappointing. It is now nearly a quarter-past two in the morning and we are trying to debate seriously a very important agricultural Measure. I do not believe there has been one occasion in the whole course of this debate when the Government have allowed themselves to be influenced by the debate. We have had the Secretary of State for Scotland sitting here most of the time. He has made very few interventions, which is quite unusual for him. Why does he not get to his feet and say something on the Amendment? He has listened to the arguments and I believe that he has been convinced by them.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): Not at all.

Mr. Prior: Then he is just as thick now as he was when he used to sit elsewhere in the House.
The Government are treating the Opposition with contempt. On the first day back we are being made to sit here all night on a Bill which could quite easily have had two days allotted to it so that we could have a sensible debate. Instead of that, we are being pushed to this extreme. We are not getting any decent replies from the Government. They are not bothering to consider the very serious points which are being made, and many of which our constituents asked us to raise. The hon. Member for Norfolk, North (Mr. Hazell) knows the problem only too well, but he has not thought fit to get to his feet to support us. This is all very disappointing, and if the Minister wants to make progress with the Bill he is going the wrong way about it.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I hesitated to speak on the Amendment earlier as I

moved it in Committee. We went into it very thoroughly on that occasion and the Parliamentary Secretary said that he would have another look at the question. I have sat here, hoping that we would hear some new view from the Government Front Bench. The only difference tonight is that the Government's case has been presented with so much greater hesitancy, and for very good reason.
The argument that to allow improvements to qualify for grants on holdings without buildings will lead to the splitting up of holdings is extremely weak. It casts a bad aspersion on the officers of the Department of Agriculture in Scotland and of the Ministry of Agriculture in England in administering these schemes. After all, the object of these schemes is set out in the beginning of Clause 30. It is to make
… long-term improvements for the benefit of agricultural land…
and it is open to any officer of the Department to refuse any suggestion which is not going to lead to a development which would be in the long-term advantage of agriculture.
2.15 a.m.
This is something which could well be left to the officers of the Department. If there is a danger of splitting up, then I should say that the officers were not doing their jobs. There are plenty of safeguards. The whole purpose of this Clause is to assist in the making of long-term improvements for agricultural land—and it is land which is important. It is not difficult to create buildings. They require bricks, and cement, and things which are man-made, but to create land in this small country of ours, so much having already been taken for roads and building, is totally another matter.
Agricultural land is declining in quantity every year, and the creation of "new" land, for example from the sea, is surely worth all the encouragement we can give. I thought that the Parliamentary Secretary was on a particularly weak point when he quibbled about the difference between hill land and marginal land. It is on marginal land in particular that there is so much scope for improvements in one form or another; and there is so much room for new techniques to be employed. I could take the Parliamentary Secretary to my con-


stituency and show him marginal land which has been tremendously improved. This land, which does not necessarily have buildings on it, is a fine example, and if this grant was used differently, a lot of land could be brought into new production in the interests of agriculture and the nation generally.
What particularly disappoints me is the Parliamentary Secretary's attitude to reclamation of land from the sea and I say this because not so long ago he was one of an enthusiastic group concerned at that time with reclaiming land from the sea off the east coast of Scotland. This is a scheme which has been talked of a great deal, and I think that the hon. Gentleman and some of his associates even went to Holland in order to take advice about how this work could best be done. So he is not personally unaware of the value of land reclamation from the sea and I am only too sorry that, instead of showing again the enthusiasm which he has shown in the past, he should have stuck so closely to his brief.
In the time which has elapsed since his reply perhaps he has had an opportunity to think again. Perhaps he would seek the leave of the House to speak again and speak from his heart and not from the paper which has been put in front of him.

Mr. Stodart: I seek the leave of the House to say one or two further words about what the Parliamentary Secretary has just said. I share the views of my hon. Friends. I think that the hon. Gentleman has been put in a disgraceful position tonight. I can well imagine the jockeying among the three Ministers as to who would not have the distasteful task of replying to this debate. It was disgraceful that he was picked on, because he knows far more about the practical side and therefore knows far more about the substance of the points raised than either of his colleagues. My heart goes out to him.
I do not know, and perhaps he will seek the leave of the House to tell us, what are the complications he mentioned. There are far greater complications in many of the agricultural schemes than would result from the inclusion in the Farm Improvement Scheme of build-

ings without land. If the Department of Agriculture for Scotland is capable of grading in the three grades every acre of winter keep area and the Ministry of Agriculture is incapable of even working a farm improvement scheme for land that has not got buildings on it, it should go to Edinburgh and get a lesson in efficiency.
The hon. Gentleman referred to hill farming schemes and pointed out that there is a 50 per cent. grant. There is, but not on buildings, as he readily said. This is the most hard-pressed branch of agriculture at the moment and it is just on that sort of farm that a building might make all the difference to things like lambing percentages. It would do more than a great deal of hill sheep subsidy would do to jack up the income on those farms if they could raise their lambing percentage quite a bit, which they might do if some of those farms without buildings were enabled to put buildings up.
With all the new techniques that the Parliamentary Secretary knows are coming into the sheep industry in particular, these should be fostered, and I hope that he will have another go. If the complications really are stupendous I can assure him that we shall be sympathetic, but on the face of it he should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: I think that the hon. Member has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Kitson: Surely, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, an hon. Member may speak again with the leave of the House? Several hon. Members on this side of the House may wish to speak again on the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: On Report, an hon. Member cannot speak twice except with the leave of the House. I do not know whether the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) has the leave of the House to speak again.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I only wish to ask the Minister a question.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker: The House has declined to give leave. Therefore the hon. Member cannot speak a second time.

Mr. John Mackie: The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) accused me of just reading from the brief and not replying and not listening to the debate. But the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) made a point of the fact that I did reply. I do not know which hon. Member was correct. I made notes and answered every point. Most of the points put exactly the same argument, so I did not have to reply to many.
It is correct that I was a member of a company that tried to reclaim the Montrose Basin before the days of the Farm Improvement Scheme. If buildings were required we were prepared to put them up if the project was feasible, but the Dutch people we consulted said that it was not. I do not know what that matter has to do with today's argument.
As far as we can see, there is no great demand at present for what the Amendment seeks. I doubt if the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns could produce an area of land in the constituency he represents and where I live that would require extra buildings that would not be attached to a farm that does not already have buildings. He may produce just a little, but I would almost challenge him to do so. I do not think that he could.
Most areas in this country—I would point out to the hon. Member for Lowestoft that I am not reading a brief—that are reclaimed could be attached to existing farms. We must remember that this is a farm improvement scheme, not a scheme for providing sets of buildings where none existed before. I said that if cases arise where large areas of land are to be reclaimed, we should have to look at them separately under a different scheme.
The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) said that the owners of hard-pressed sheep farms could do with buildings. As I said earlier when administering the 50 per cent. grant for improvement of hill land we intend that such things as shelters for lambing should qualify for grant. If the farmers want buildings in the normal way they can get the normal F.I.S. grant. If there are already buildings—and there are mostly buildings of one kind and another on those farms—there can be a farm improvement grant. The hon. Gentleman knows that well, and I do not know why

he made the point. I would emphasise again that I am now replying to the points that have been made and am not reading from a brief.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman said that he was answering the various points that have been raised. I asked a question of him. When a farmer going out of business sells his buildings to some other person, perhaps a retired shopkeeper, and so the land is separated from the buildings, there one has land which someone else may wish to take over. Is that to be eligible for grant or not?

Mr. Mackie: I should say not. That is the sort of case that could perhaps come under an amalgamation scheme. Anyway, if it is a case of people selling off buildings I cannot imagine that the hon. Member wants us to spend public money providing buildings and allow people to sell them off.
I think that I have answered all the points. I am certain that if there were to be a strong demand in the future for help in enquipping large areas of bare land we should need to look at this under a totally different scheme. It could not be looked at under the present Farm Improvement Scheme.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Jopling: I beg to move Amendment No. 49, in page 36, line 15, to leave out from 'circumstances' to the end of line 17.
I am particularly glad that the Government have given way on the previous Amendment, and I am sure that—

Mr. James Davidson: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. Can you tell us whether the last Amendment was passed?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): The last Amendment was negatived.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I definitely heard some hon. Members shout "Aye" and some shout "No". In that case, why was not the Question put to a Division?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I put the Question to leave out "land" to "and" in line 5. The Question was "That the


words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause." I did not hear any hon. Member call "No" or challenge it, and so I declared that the Ayes had it.

2.30 a.m.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I heard someone on the Government Front Bench shout "No".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I listened very carefully. I heard a number of voices say "Aye". I looked at the Opposition side of the Chamber to see if anyone was calling "No". I did not hear anyone say "No". Therefore, I decided that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Prior: Further to that point of order. Probably you were looking at the wrong side of the Chamber. It was on that side of the Chamber that the "Noes" had it. There can be no doubt that the Government made a mistake and got it wrong.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sure that I made no mistake. I collected the voices. I heard "Ayes" and no "Noes" and decided that the Ayes had it.

Mr. Jopling: Further to that point of order. Would you care to ask the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he said "No"? I heard him say "No", as did many of my hon. Friends. Will you invite the right hon. Gentleman to clarify the situation?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is my duty to collect the voices. I did so and announced my decision.

Mr. Jopling: We discussed this Amendment in Committee and had some sort of promise from the Minister that he would look at the matter again. The Amendment raises a question of the utmost importance, particularly in certain areas such as those in the national parks. The first part of subsection (4,c) raises new considerations. We all welcome that part which allows grants to be paid on the agricultural part of improvements where previously none could be paid. That is a thoroughly good thing. But there is a case, which is negatived in the second part of subsection (4,c), for grant aid for other benefits which are of a non-agricultural nature.

The Amendment, allowing such grants, would be an extremely valuable change in certain areas. I am thinking particularly of the national parks and areas of outstanding natural beauty which constitute vast tracts of our countryside. I represent part of an important area, the Lake District. The Minister himself also represents part of it and he is well aware of the problems. Like other national parks, we have a planning board. In general, such boards do a very good job but it is said in the Lake District—and, I am sure, in other national parks—that the planning board is the most hated body in the district. I suppose that this is inevitable because there are great disadvantages in living in a national park. Some are caused by the people who visit them. Others are caused by the planning boards.
It is nice for people in my constituency to wake up in the morning and look at the distant view but it is not so pleasant for them to find on their front lawns campers cooking sausages over a primus stove and who reply, when asked to go away, "This is a national park and there is no reason why we should not be here."
That is one of the disadvantages of farming in a national park, but another is the very high cost of building because of the conditions laid down by the planning boards about the materials and building methods to be used. In most national parks it is insisted that some of the cheap materials, like concrete and asbestos, cannot be used and slate and stone and other natural materials have to be used instead. This means a high cost for farmers who want to put up buildings, and yet the provisions of the second part of paragraph (c) mean that grant cannot be paid in respect of that extra cost which is caused by amenity considerations demanded by the planning authorities in areas of outstanding beauty throughout the country.
This is commercially a disadvantage for farmers in such areas compared with farmers who may be just across the road but outside the area. They have no alternative and cannot get out of meeting the demands of the planning boards if they want to make improvements. It is perfectly right that the planning boards should make these demands and I am sure that we would all agree that they


should be able to do so, but the benefit of these extra costs and the use of these special building materials goes to people who come from all over the country to enjoy the national parks and areas of outstanding beauty. Therefore, as the benefit of these demands and these extra costs is enjoyed by the nation as a whole, the nation as a whole should be prepared to pay part of the cost.
That is surely an argument with which few will disagree. As he comes from the Lake District, I should be surprised if what I am saying did not have the Minister's personal sympathy. The agricultural land in our national parks tends to be poorer land and that is where agricultural help is needed most.
I hope that the Amendment is accepted. I am prepared to wager that if the country ever goes into the European Economic Community, legislation of this sort will be passed before we have been in for very long, because extra assistance to cover amenity considerations and the extra cost resulting from planning decisions would be allowed within the Treaty of Rome, because it would not have any direct bearing on any specific agricultural production.
I have spoken at some length because this is one of the greatest problems which farmers in the national parks now face and I hope that the Government will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Kimball: I hope that the Minister will think again about this proposal, because if he continues to refuse this Amendment he will be out of line with the thinking of all amenity bodies and people represented on the recent Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference on the Countryside in 1970. My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) spoke most eloquently about his national park, but we are faced with the fact that the right hon. Gentleman is going around creating other recreational areas in the countryside and vast extensions of the areas of outstanding beauty. That will mean added burdens on the farmers in these areas as the planning restrictions become even greater.
The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that one of the recommendations of the Duke of Edinburgh's Study Conference

on the Countryside in 1970 was that agricultural buildings over a certain height should now be subject to planning restrictions. What the conference had in mind was that agricultural buildings over a certain area are now subject to planning restrictions, but that the new kinds of silo towers are beginning to disfigure the landscape in many parts of the countryside and should therefore be subject to planning consent.
If these tower silos and bigger buildings are to become subject to planning approval, no doubt planning committees will allow them to go through, but will make very extensive safeguards and will insist on the buildings being painted a certain colour and being built of certain materials to tone with the landscape. The Minister is being quite unrealistic and out of touch with people in the countryside and with the more advanced thinking about amenities if he continues to resist. I hope that, at least on this point, he will give us a favourable answer. We have sat here until this late hour and so far I do not believe we have had a single favourable answer out of the Government.
Most of the argument one hears today is that in many cases the agricultural community is despoiling the countryside. There is almost a clash between the agricultural community and the naturalist and people who want to preserve the countryside. The Minister, by his mismanagement of agricultural policy, is forcing farmers to take measures which they are reluctant to take; to plough up commons and areas of scientific interest that should never be ploughed up. All these are done unwillingly at the moment and the Minister is now putting an extra burden on the farmers by not allowing them to spend the extra money which the planning committees will demand, to increase the beauty of our countryside.

Sir Frank Pearson: The House should be deeply grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) for having raised an extremely important point in this part of the Bill. We can only express the deepest regret that this extremely important matter has had to be raised at such an early hour of the morning and after we have debated the Bill for a considerable time.
From the Minister's replies, it is clear that he is unable to give the detailed


and serious consideration we all expect to the points we raise, even at this hour of the morning. My hon. Friend has raised this point with regard to the question of the national parks. My own constituency is near a national park and I am fully aware of the growing difficulties many agriculturalists find they are up against when they wish to develop holdings in a national park.
It is only recently, by an action which appeared to be slightly dictatorial and slightly "off", that the Minister of Land and Natural Resources re-formed the National Parks Commission and brought to that body an entirely new set of people. It is early days to say what will be the effect of the change in the Commission on the agricultural holdings in the national parks, but casting one's eyes down the list, one cannot help feeling that the bias in the future may well be in favour of urban enjoyment, and possibly to a point against the best agricultural interests.
I know that the National Farmers' Union is very concerned about the degree of representation that it has on the new Parks Commission. My remarks are extremely germane to the Amendment because if the conditions under which the farmer may develop his buildings or land are to be even more stringent than before, we have to be particularly careful that nothing in the Bill places a greater burden upon him.
2.45 a.m.
Already we have heard of the case when one is required to use special roofing or building materials which, in some cases, will be considerably more expensive than the normal materials. As I understand the Clause, no allowance to meet that added expense will be given in any grant. That is not only a serious injustice but a definite discouragement to the farming community to carry out improvements and alterations which obviously are in the best interests of agriculture.
Another facet of this Clause gives cause for concern. Under subsection (3) it is clear that in giving his approval to a grant the Minister will have power to approve it in whole or in part. It is not clear from the present wording what is meant by approving it in part. Take a milk producer who not only produces milk from his dairy herd, but also retails

it. Such a man has vehicles going to and from the farm regularly—an access road is needed. Perhaps there is a bridge to cross a stream, a cattle grid, all matters coming within the purview of these grants under Schedule 4. How is the Minister to assess the grant?
Will such a man get the full grant or will the Minister say that part of the improvements carried out are in relation to the retailing side of the business, and that only part of the grant will be paid? This point should be clarified by the Minister, because if it is not we will find that we have an anomaly. We will have a situation in which a man who merely milks the cattle and sells the milk wholesale gets the full grant, but the man who milks the cattle and sells retail receives only part. That is clearly wrong.
There may also be a farmer carrying out contracting operations. Will he receive the full grant or will it be cut down because he is carrying out operations not strictly concerned with the farming of the land?
I hope that the Minister will follow up the genuine fears on this side of the House about the exact interpretation of this Clause. If he can give an answer, well and good, we will accept it. If he cannot clear up this point then the second part of the subsection, which we seek to delete, should be looked at very closely by the Minister.

Mr. Kitson: I very much hope that the Minister will accept this Amendment, and I hope also that he will discourage his Parliamentary Secretary from trying to rush us at this time of night, as he did in the last Amendment—quite shockingly so when one recalls that it took about 15 months to get the Committee stage of the Bill. We cannot now be expected to rush it through.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) on the way in which he moved the Amendment. He has the very attractive Lake District in his constituency, and in my constituency I have a large part of the Yorkshire Dales National Park. It is sad but true to say that it is expensive now to live in a national park. A good deal of bitterness is growing up among people living in the national parks about the restrictions that are being put on them by the planning committees.
I had a case a year or two ago when 10 farmers wished to put in electricity. They obtained agreement and a grant to put electricity into their farms. Then, at the eleventh hour, the planning committee said that the electricity lines must go underground. I accept that it was a good idea that the electricity lines should go underground, but, at the same time, it was not the responsibility of the individuals who wanted electricity to have to foot the additional bill. It was a national responsibility, and it was grossly unfair.
People farming in these difficult areas should receive encouragement and not discouragement, which they get as a result of planning committees giving decisions of this sort. Unless the Minister is prepared to accept this sort of Amendment, it will make it even more difficult in the future. I hope that, as he has a national park in his constituency, he will be sympathetic to the Amendment.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: My hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) has done a service to the House, as he did in Committee, in raising the problems which face farmers in these areas. So far in the debate emphasis has been laid on the difficulties and, perhaps, the resentment which is felt amongst farmers who have special restrictions laid upon them, and have to pay for them, but what is encouraging is the number of farmers in both Scotland and England who have, in carrying out improvements on their farms, taken into account aesthetic values in the type of buildings they have put up, without having any requirement laid upon them to do so.
In comparison with industry, agriculture has often shown, in the way it has put up its buildings, that it is much more conscious of amenity value and the effect that such buildings have on the countryside. This is particularly true in Scotland. I know that our new Under-Secretary who is responsible for agriculture in Scotland is interested in the countryside, and I am sure that he will bear me out when I speak of the great pride Scottish farmers have in their steadings and of the unique architectural value of many of our agricultural steadings. There are exceptions and some monstrosities, but in general it is noticeable in Scotland how

well many of these impromements in farm steadings and buildings have been carried out.
We can pride ourselves on our agricultural buildings in Scotland. In many places where there have been no restrictions, natural materials in the form of stone and slate have been used in improvements, maintaining the amenity value of the area. I think we are better off in Scotland than in England. When I was touring farms in the south-west of England a few years ago, the Englishman who was conducting the tour said, every time we came to a particularly tidy and attractive steading, that it was a Scot who was working that farm.

Mr. Peter Mills: I must protest.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: That shows how conscious we are of these things in Scotland and how we have been able to carry something of value south of the Border as well.

Mr. Henry Clark: Does it not show how right Dr. Johnson was when he said that the finest view in Scotland was the road leading to England?

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: It is a fine view where the Scots have improved it.
This is a very important Amendment for farmers living in a national park area who have to comply with a higher standard of materials and building design and for farmers who, on their own account, wish to use higher class materials purely to maintain the appearance of their steadings, particularly when they are close to a main road, even when there is no restriction on them. It is a great pity that they are put at a disadvantage compared with others, and I very much hope that the Minister will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I am worried by the distinction which the Clause will make between improvements done with a little grace and charm and improvements done with minimum concern for the beauty of the landscape. The Minister's difficulty will be in distinguishing with precision between that part of an improvement which goes to the strictly agricultural benefit of the land, which he approves, and that part of the improvement which goes to amenity.
Here are some examples from his own Schedule. Money is to be available for filling in ponds and depressions. This can be done in the minimum way, or it can be done in such a way that a little grace and beauty is added to the landscape. Money is to be available for putting up a shelter belt. How will the Minister distinguish that part of the shelter belt of trees which goes to the agricultural benefit of the land and the part which adds a little grace to the landscape? My next example is the damming of a valley to form a lake. This has been done on a farm I know very well. Presumably, the owner could apply for grant under the Bill because this would provide benefit in the watering of cattle. But, once again, the farmer will be tempted, as the Bill now stands, to do it in the minimum way, the most utilitarian or proletarian way. I suppose that this is how our society is moving today, but in the past this nation has preserved its landscape because men have not sought to do their farming in the most utilitarian fashion. They have sought to add a little grace and charm for posterity.
I am not asking the Minister to sanction the expenditure of public money on beautifying the landscape, but I want him to say to the farming community that, when they make improvements, they should have in mind the beauty and charm of the landscape, not thinking solely of the agricultural benefit as defined in the Bill. I hope that we shall not reach a situation in which it is impossible to distinguish with precision between that part of an improvement which goes to the agricultural benefit of the land and that part which, in my view, goes to the national interest.

Mr. John Mackie: In reply to the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), I must point out that I have no power to rush the House and would not attempt to do so. I think that it was either yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, or your predecessor in the Chair who must have appeared to the hon. Gentleman to rush the House. I certainly did not. I have neither the wish nor the power to do so, and I cannot understand the hon. Gentleman's observation.
The hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), has raised the question of the "prudent owner-occupier" test and the proposals for dealing with that part of an improvement which might be affected by amenity considerations.
3.0 a.m.
I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith), Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) and Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) and I did not notice any difference in any of their arguments. They have all been the same, emphasising the same points, except for the hon. Member for Clitheroe, who went back to the previous Clause and was, I think, out of order in doing so. It has nothing to do with the Amendment.

Sir Frank Pearson: rose—

Mr. Mackie: I will just say—

Mr. Henry Clark: On a point of order. Is the Parliamentary Secretary in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in casting aspersions on the ability of the Chair to keep hon. Members in order?

Mr. Peart: He is not casting aspersions.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Nothing I have heard so far has been out of order. The reply which the Minister gives is his responsibility.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Member for Clitheroe mentioned a milk retailer wanting a road for his milk float and for farm traffic. If there were a difference in the road because it was to be used for the two purposes, we have people who could apportion so much to the farm use and so much to the dairy business. I cannot imagine that it would be difficult, but, in any event, it seems unlikely that the road would be much different from what would be required for farm traffic only.
The Amendment would delete the provisions which require the Minister, when applying the "prudent owner-occupier" test, to disregard any benefit from an improvement other than that to the farming of agricultural land. It has been made clear, however, that what is mainly intended in proposing the Amendment


is that where an improvement includes work required for amenity reasons—buildings in national parks have been quoted as the best example—grants should be paid on the full cost. The roofing of buildings with slate, for example, is one of the things that is required in the national park in the constituency of the hon. Member for Westmorland. The intention of the Amendment is that grant should be available on the full cost of the work. Where such work is a statutory requirement and it gives a reasonable agricultural benefit in relation to its cost, we will pay grant on the full cost, as we have always done.
I looked at an improvement in a national park area where the landlords were the National Trust. It was a very good improvement of a milking parlour and yard with self-feed silage and slatted—or, at any rate, grid—floors. The area wall next to the road had to be built in stone, together with a gable showing over the top of the buildings, otherwise it was allowed to be built in asbestos and asbestos block. The landlord paid for the difference. I appreciate that not every landlord does that in the national park areas. There are other landlords than the National Trust.
But this is a scheme for the improvement of agricultural buildings. It is a farm improvement scheme and not an amenity improvement scheme. Hon. Members have made the fair point that, if the public wish to have these amenities in national parks or elsewhere, their providers should be helped from public funds; but this should be done not with funds from the agriculture Vote but from other sources—if this is what the public wish.
Under the old Farm Improvement Scheme, if the inclusion of such amenity work took the cost of the improvement above what was reasonable on agricultural grounds, the applicant got nothing at all. He will be better off under this Bill, because the apportionment provisions in Clause 35(2) allow us to make a contribution to that part of the cost which is justified on agricultural grounds. This was welcomed on the benches opposite but hon. Members want a bit more.
Similarly, we shall be enabled to apportion in cases where the applicant himself, free of any statutory requirement, wishes

to use more expensive material than can be justified on agricultural grounds. It would be wrong to go beyond this in an Agriculture Bill by taking power to grant aid the full cost of any amenity work, even if it could not be justified agriculturally.
Apart from the statutory requirement in national park areas, many farmers wish—for reasons of amenity, posterity and so on—to carry out work of a special quality. This is all well and good. However, I do not believe that one could expect public money to be spent in all cases for those purposes.
I was asked how distinctions would be made. I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that when it comes to considering such things, we have people who have the technical ability to deal with them. They have gained experience of this type of activity and, as time passes, they will gain further experience. They are able to decide how much of the work is of agricultural value and how much is of amenity value. They do their work well and fairly. I ask the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: I am not satisfied with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply. I am sure that my hon. Friends feel the same, particularly after the powerful case which they deployed in favour of the Amendment. I expected a concession from the Government on this matter and it is obvious that the Minister has not faced up to the strong arguments adduced by my hon. Friends who represent areas the farmers of which take great pride in the countryside and its appearance. Many problems confront those who must earn their livelihood in these areas, and while they do not begrudge people from other parts of the country visiting their areas to enjoy the amenities, they should not be penalised for wanting to enhance and preserve those amenities.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary referred to the 1957 Act. This Part of the Bill follows almost exactly the wording of Section 12(3,c) of the previous Measure, although whereas in the Bill there is a definite disregard which my hon. Friends wish to limit, no such disregard appears in the Act. The hon. Gentleman rested his case on the fact that, under the Act, if costs were above a certain amount, nothing at all would be paid. That would not appear to be the case


from the wording of the Act. Why is it necessary, since the wording of this Part of the Bill so closely follows the wording of the Act, to insert this additional limitation?
In view of the strong case adduced by my hon. Friends, I am sure that the House would be willing to give the Joint Parliamentary Secretary another opportunity to explain exactly what he has in mind. He said that where there was a statutory requirement, the Department would pay the full cost, as it had always done. But if the words which the Amendment proposes to delete remain in, there will not be such a statutory requirement. It is obvious, therefore, that if the Amendment is accepted, the statutory requirement will be far greater than if it were rejected. In resisting the Amendment the hon. Gentleman is seeking to prevent there being a statutory requirement, and in saying "Where there is a statutory requirement we will pay the full cost", he is being somewhat naïve because he is limiting the degree of statutory requirement the re will be.
The Parliamentary Secretary should therefore look at this point again. His answer does not match up with the powerful case put forward by my hon. Friends—a case which evoked sympathy from both sides. I saw hon. Members opposite nodding—I presumed in agreement, but it may have been for other reasons. I hope that the Government will look at this matter again, and I invite the Parliamentary Secretary to reply again.

Mr. John Mackie: I did not rest my entire case on the point mentioned by the right hon. Gentleman, but this Measure does give a better deal than did the 1957 Act. On the other point, I said that where there is a statutory requirement and where the work gives a reasonable agricultural benefit in relation to its cost, we will pay grant on the full cost. This to a considerable extent takes care of what I have mentioned, such as roofing a building, or slating it in a national park—such things as were mentioned by the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths), private amenity, and so on. I think that the reasons I have advanced are perfectly sound ones.

Mr. Godber: If that is so, why is it necessary to put in these words? This must restrict the position more than it was restricted in the 1957 Act. That is

the point that I want to have cleared up. Are the Government being more restrictive here than we were in 1957, or not? It is a fairly simple point. The purpose of the Amendment is to restore the position as it was in the 1957 Act rather than have it as it is here. I should be glad to be reassured, but at the moment I am rather worried by the hon. Gentleman's reply.

Mr. Jopling: Before the Minister replies to my right hon. Friend, I should like to comment on another part of the platform on which he based his argument—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Member who moved the Amendment has the right to speak again.

Mr. Jopling: I was always under that impression, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I am glad to have your support. When the right hon. Gentleman the Minister has stopped muttering and has finished his conversation, I shall be most grateful.

Mr. Peart: We would have given the hon. Member permission to speak again. As I have said, he is rather a decent fellow.

Mr. Jopling: It is very nice to hear that. The Minister accuses me of extravagant language, so that is very helpful.
The Parliamentary Secretary said, and I think that I wrote down his words correctly, "This is an Agriculture Bill and not an amenity Bill." The fact is that the provisions which will apply to farms will put a severe cost on farmers for amenity reasons. I do not doubt that these amenities add very considerably to a farmer's costs in these places, and I am quite sure that the cost to farmers of amenity considerations is taken care of in the Price Review. They are costs a farmer cannot avoid. He has to pay for them, and it seems to me that they are rather similar to those costs caused by a local authority demanding that he does certain things about his outflow. That is a public health matter. The Minister pays grant on measures of public health, and I see no reason why he should not pay it also on amenity value.

Mr. John Mackie: One could go into various areas of farm land around London and find excuses at the Price


Review for saying that we should have different reviews for those areas on the ground that costs are very high. One could go around the country finding excuses for differential price reviews all over the place. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has put a very strong argument.

Amendment negatived.

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The next Amendment is No. 50.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The Patronage Secretary is now with us. Would it not be reasonable in the circumstances to ask him whether he would consider adjourning the debate and allowing us to continue on another day? We have not seen much of him during the day.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order, however relevant the hon. Member's intervention might otherwise appear to be. Amendment No. 50, Mr. Hector Monro.

Mr. Monro: I beg to move Amendment No. 50, in page 36, line 17, at the end to insert:
(5) Improvements and renewals (but not repairs) of permanent fences (including hedges), walls and gates, where these form the boundary between two farms, shall be exempt from the provisions of paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the preceding subsection.
The Government Front Bench have been very stubborn, testy and unhelpful throughout the long sitting, and I hope that the Scottish Ministers will now have a chance to show that they are enlightened and sympathetic to agriculture.
This is a simple Amendment that will cost very little indeed and will be of great financial importance to the smallholder. The Amendments concerns march fences—[Interruption.] I wonder if the Minister of Agriculture would give back benchers the opportunity of making speeches? I am talking of the renewal of march fences, and not the repair. I am referring not only to fences but to dykes and gates. In Scotland march fences must be maintained, in accordance either with the Statute of 1661 or with common law, or indeed by title. This is an obligation that cannot be escaped by the farmers concerned.
A large farm that is viable is entitled to a farm improvement grant. A smallholding that is not viable is not entitled to the grant for a march fence. If a large and a small farm march together, the big farmer will get the farm improvement grant but the smaller one, who has an equal obligation to provide a fence, does not. Although the smaller farmer's financial need is much greater, he is still forced to pay 50 per cent. of the cost of the fence. This is most unfair, particularly when one realises that yet again the Socialist Government are hammering the small man when one would have thought that the provision of help to the smallholder would be a very simple matter indeed.
This is not a hypothetical case. I have had such a case in my own constituency very near to my own farm. I know the fence and the farmer well. He has the distinguished name of Willie Ross. This matter was considered in detail in Standing Committee. This fence was 900 yards long, between a smallholding and a larger farm. I had a sympathetic letter from the Parliamentary Secretary last May, mentioning that the matter would be brought up in the debates on the Agriculture Bill. It was then debated in detail in Committee and it was argued cogently by my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart). The then Minister of State, Scottish Office said:
…we would be quite prepared to look at this point again. We have already looked at it very carefully and we are prepared to look at it again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A; 8th November, 1966, c. 903.]
This was a similar promise to that given by the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, reported in col. 904 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of the same date, in relation to England and Wales. What has happened to that promise? Absolutely nothing at all. We expected that some Amendment would be made during the Report stage, and I am most disappointed. My hon. Friends are disappointed, and I hope that the Secretary for Scotland will now relent and be more reasonable in relation to these smallholders, knowing as he does that they can be forced by law to carry out this financial burden, this impossible burden. It might well cost the whole of a smallholder's income for a year to provide a march fence.
After all the refusals of the many constructive Amendments which we on this side have, put forward, here is an opportunity for the Government to concede a small point, but something of great value and importance for smallholders. Acceptance of this could not possibly cost the Ministry a large sum of money, but it would do an enormous amount of good in creating good will and helping these farmers. I ask that, at last, the Government should agree to accept a really constructive Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: I warmly endorse what my hon. Friend has just said. There was a time just after the death of the former hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles, when I was asked to keep an eye on his constituency, and one of the first things brought to my notice was this very subject. There was a smallholding which could not have a grant for a march fence, and I am sure that if the Secretary of State checks this, he will find a great volume of correspondence about it. I put the case in great detail and for that reason will not waste the time of the House repeating my case tonight, although it would be most relevant.
However, we might be told if there are many cases of this sort and how many applications have been refused. In this way we could reach some sort of assessment of the number of cases facing us. I do not believe that a large sum of money would be involved, but even on that point the Scottish Office could surely provide an estimate.
I am not certain whether one would be right in pressing for a special grant for march fences where they divide two nonviable units, because we might then get into the realm of smallholdings, which could not qualify. At the same time, one could give examples of a reasonable sized farm which has a smallholding on the other side and in which there is a "little" man who really gets the thick end of the stick.
The Government is fully entitled to accept this Amendment. It would cause no qualms of doubt to be expressed by taxpayers supporting the Government who are not, in any case, usually fond of farmers. I ask that the Government, in a sympathetic frame of mind, should accept the Amendment.

Mr. Kimball: My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) probably realises that, at the moment, hon. Members opposite are taking a much more generous attitude about the provision of cattle grids, particularly where main roads and class A and B roads go through march fences. One can get a farm improvement grant on the provision of a cattle grid, but when one approaches the roads and bridges committee of a county council about the placing of those grids it is not particularly interested in the exact position of the march. The road surveyor may well ask that the grid be moved anything up to 300 or 400 yards from the existing march fence and march. This will involve quite a lot of expense in the realignment of the march fences, especially if the grid happens to be between a large and small farm which fails to get a farm improvement grant and help under the Bill because it is not a viable unit. I hope that the Secretary of State will re-examine the problem, particularly in view of the urgency resulting from the large demand and the large number of cattle grids being put in all over Scotland on various march fences.
If we are to have the grant—and I trust that we are, because I hope that he will accept the Amendment—I hope that he will consider a little more the traditional materials which should be used, particularly in fences bordering main roads. All the new fencing down the motorways in England has to be approved by the Fine Art Commission. I do not think that it is disparaging to Scotland to say that there is too much use there of wire fences that are out of keeping with the landscape and are also useless from an agriculture point of view, because they do not provide shelter for stock and do not encourage them to settle. The stock just walk along the fences for miles until they get round the end. The fences are often sited in the most exposed place because it makes a better fence line and not for reasons of grazing and giving good shelter to stock.
I hope that the right hon. Gentleman realises that this is a far greater problem than either of my two hon. Friends said, and that in view of the great demand for help with march fences and the fact that county councils are now much more


amenable to putting in cattle he will look again at the Amendment.

Mr. Stodart: The great feature of the discussions concerning the Amendment in Committee and the correspondence leading up to it has been sympathy. The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland, Lord Hughes, was sympathetic and the Minister of State expressed great sympathy. I am very sorry that he is not on the Front Bench to see the finish of this somewhat marathon Bill. He assured us that his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was sympathetic.
I would have thought that it would be most unusual to have a 26-acre farm with a 900-yard march fence. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will be able to tell us how many cases have come within the experience of the Department of Agriculture of applicants for farm improvement grant for the renewal of their march fences or walls having to meet refusals because of the present Statute.
3.30 a.m.
I assure the right hon. Gentleman that under the Statute as it is at the moment drawn refusal was inevitable. The application fell without doubt under subsection (4, b). Therefore, I would not for a moment criticise the Department for its ruling in this case. However, I think that it was an oversight when the 1957 Bill was drafted and discussed. No Committee can possibly be expected to think of everything at the time. It is only when cases of this kind emerge that one realises that such a set of circumstances slipped through the net. What matters now is that things should be put right. It is only just that this should be put right.
The former Minister of State said that he would look at the matter again. In Committee I suggested a possible Amendment applying only to Scotland, if that would help, because the legal position of the upkeep of boundary fences there is different from what I understand it is in England. I would not propose to expound the law of England on boundary fences. Whether England has anything equivalent to the Scottish Winter Herding Act, 1660, I would not know. At any rate, my hon. Friend has explained the legal position in Scotland, and as no move has come from the Government

and because in Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) said that cases of this kind exist in England, we have tabled a general Amendment applying to the United Kingdom.
I hope that we shall now achieve the great break-through in the somewhat lengthy proceedings on this stage of the Bill and have from a Scottish Minister an acceptance of an Amendment which I believe would ensure that justice was done.

Mr. Hawkins: In the Standing Committee the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said:
In England and Wales … the responsibility for maintaining a fence rests wholly with one of the parties whose land it divides."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 8th November, 1966; c. 904.]
I disagree strongly with that. I know of many cases where fences are party fences, and presumably parting dykes are also included in "fences", and many dykes in the Fen District are party dykes. They cause a considerable nuisance in the sense that while the man on one side is doing the job that he ought to do, the other man will not do it at the same time.
In England certainly all the parting dykes and fences do not belong just to one side or the other. In many cases they are party dykes or fences. In that event, I assume that England could be brought into this matter. This seems to be something that I also should support.

Mr. Ross: I should like to surprise and delight the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) by accepting the Amendment. But what we are dealing with is the Farm Improvement Scheme, and there are certain things which are basic to it. They are listed in the Bill.
But the Amendment just casts them overboard. We start by having a Farm Improvement Scheme. Then hon. Members opposite say "It does not really matter whether one is applying the whole basis of the scheme." The Amendment starts by disapplying entirely the usual statutory tests of the improvement scheme: improvements and renewals—but not repairs—of boundary fences, hedges, walls and gates. They could be approved even if the land were not


occupied by buildings, even if the land were not capable of yielding a sufficient livelihood and even if the cost was unreasonably high and the improvement were not such as a prudent owner-occupier would undertake. How much further could one go to destroy the improvement scheme?
It has been said that not many cases are involved. But the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), supported by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) says there are a lot more. Once we started with fences we should not be able to stop there. We should get to such things as electricity costs and before we knew where we were we should be forgetting the basis of what we were doing—trying to improve units which are economic and channelling the available money to them.
The number of cases which have been brought to my notice in the past two years is about half a dozen. That does not mean to say that there are not more. But in order to get the information we should have to go through all the improvement schemes and we should not be justified in incurring the cost of that. I assure hon. Members that I have pondered on this matter. I have also considered the case mentioned by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West—that of the man with the distinguished name. I am surprised that the hon. Member knows the case so well that he does not know the name. It is not William Ross but Walter Ross. However, that is still a distinguished name. The first King-Advocate of Scotland was called Walter Ross.
The Amendment is unacceptable, although the hon. Member made it clear that he is concerned with a narrow point. We regard the sufficient livelihood criterion as basic to the improvement scheme. Indeed, so does the Opposition. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman did not blame my Department. I have been through the files. He himself adjudicated on such schemes and came down for the advice given to him as to what the Statute meant.
The hon. Gentleman may remember one particular case, because a number of men who are in uneconomic units are not necessarily small men. That will give

him a hint, because I do not want to use names in respect of this. All I will say is that it involved discrimination against a small, uneconomic unit.
I repeat that, if we accepted the Amendment, we should be extending this not only to fences but to such things as electricity supply. This would be taking it considerably wider than the "sufficient livelihood" criterion.
Scottish law in relation to fences has been referred to. The point was answered by the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins). It is not so different in England and Wales. One would need to examine the title of the land to find the application to Scotland. It sometimes surprises me that the big farmer, to whom this is essential, does not take pity on the small man and go ahead, because the benefit accrues to him and the initiative generally comes from him.
I have had to disappoint hon. Members, but we must regard the Amendment as cutting right across the basic elements of the scheme and breaching an important principle to which we must adhere. I must therefore advise the House to reject the Amendment, despite the implications for the Clan Ross and the gentleman of Mosswood Farm, Kirtlebridge, Dumfries. I note the points which have been made, but I think that it will be appreciated that this is the only advice which I can give if we are to mean what we say about the Farm Improvement Scheme.

Mr. Monro: The reply of the Secretary of State was most disappointing. I had thought that after sitting here for so many hours he would be cheerful, but he was even more grumpy than the other members of the Government Front Bench.
He said that the march fence was not important in relation to the Farm Improvement Scheme. But the smaller a farm the more important the march fence is, because every blade of grass eaten by a neighbour's straying sheep is important. The right hon. Gentleman is being most unhelpful to the small man. The Amendment is to the advantage of the smallholder, not the large farmer.
The right hon. Gentleman said that it would cost a great deal of money to find out how many farm improvement schemes might be put forward under the Amendment, but he went on to show that he had


not bothered in the time since the Committee stage, when all these promises were given by his colleagues, to find out, and then he went on to say that there might have been six cases in the last year or two. I cannot believe that there would be so many that very much difference would be made to the total sum of money expended on the Farm Improvement Scheme throughout Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
The right hon. Gentleman has failed agricultural Members by not taking this issue as seriously as the Standing Committee was promised it would be and I shall continue to press the Amendment to the end.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 31.—(GRANTS TOWARDS EXPENDI-TURE ON FIXED EQUIPMENT, ETC., AND IMPROVEMENTS, FOR PURPOSES OF GRICULTURAL BUSINESSES.)

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 51, in page 37, line 42, at the beginning to insert:
Subject to any order under section (Power to vary rates, and extend scope, of grants for agricultural investment) of this Act".
This Amendment is consequential on new Clause 1.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 32.—(GRANTS TOWARDS EXPENDITURE ON AGRICULTURAL TRACTORS AND HARVESTERS.)

Mr. Hawkins: I beg to move Amendment No. 52, in page 38, line 26, at the end to insert:
including machines used solely in agriculture under contract".
The purpose of the Amendment is that a catgory of tractors, possibly small in number, should be added to those which attract the lump sum grant. In my district these are tractors owned not by farmers but used solely by farmers and entirely for farm work. The cases in my constituency to which my attention has been drawn are those in which a contractor owns and leases a tractor, or tractors, for the whole of its economic life, maintaining and servicing it for so much per annum or so much per hundred hours' running time.
I should have thought that obviously this category was included in the Clause, but on doing a valuation in my constituency, I was told by a farmer who has several of these tractors on a leasing agreement that he had been told by the contractor who owned them that the charge per tractor would have to go up as he, the owner, would not get the new 10 per cent. grant.
3.45 a.m.
I spoke to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on the matter and he replied by letter. I hope that he has a copy of it, because we want a clear explanation of the reason for the conclusion come to in the letter, which I was grateful to receive.
The letter, written on 20th December, says:
You inquired whether contractors who purchased tractors for hiring out to farmers would be able to claim the proposed 10 per cent. investment grant on new tractors. I am afraid these grants will not be payable on machines which are leased or hired.
A contractor whose business is devoted exclusively to agricultural work will be able to claim the grant on tractors which he himself uses exclusively for that work.
I understand from the National Association of Agricultural Contractors that their members do not normally lease or hire out their machines but it will in any case he a condition that grant-aided machines are not hired or leased.
I do not understand the argument behind this. Why should a tractor sent out to farm A and farm B and then in another week to farm C, which is taken back to headquarters, attract the grant, while that contractor who puts a tractor on a farm for most of its life, where it is solely doing agricultural work, not receive the grant? Why should he not get the 10 per cent. grant which will enable him to lease it more cheaply? It seems incredible that there should be this distinction. I know of farmers who have 15 or 20 of these tractors. There are some hundreds in West Norfolk. We have found this system of the greatest importance for young farmers with limited capital. Young farmers are extremely pressed to raise the necessary capital to make their farm during the first few years, to buy the equipment, manures, seed corn and so on.
A lot of capital is needed by the young man going into farming today, particularly if he has to buy his farm on mortgage, and it is a great advantage if he


can save capital by getting somebody else to allow his capital to work for him. The smaller farmers, also, want to use their capital which would be put into tractors. They can save £1,500 to £2,000 and put the money with which they can ill afford to buy tractors, into some other money-making unit on their farms. They could use it to put up a deep-litter hut, or a poultry or pig unit. The Minister can understand the importance of this to younger farmers, and smaller farmers, who are very hard-pressed for capital. This again means that this contractor can specialise in maintenance work. In all of these leasing arrangements the contractor maintains the tractors, and services them. Usually this means that, as one type is normally used, spare parts are readily available, whereas through an agent they might have to be obtained from some other part of the country.
I do not want to misquote the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, particularly as he is not here, nor do I want to read into his remarks anything that was not intended, but I understood from the letter he wrote to me on 20th December, and he saw me afterwards, that he could not give any good reason why there should be a difference between these two types of contractors, that is, the one doing 100 acres ploughing here and 200 acres cultivating there, and the other contractor who puts his tractor out on a particular farm to do any job that the farmer wants done, under the control of the farmer.
Surely the grants are meant to be for the assistance of the farmer. To stop giving grants to contractors leasing out tractors will make the farming of land relying upon these contractors more expensive. They are just the kind of farmers who ought to receive help. I hope that the Minister, having looked at this again, if he cannot give a good reason for differentiating between the two types of contractors, has reached a different conclusion from that given to me on 20th December.

Mr. Prior: The time has come for the Government to give way on an Amendment, and this provides them with the opportunity. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland will reply to the debate because, when one looks back a year or two ago, he had a lot of criticism to make about the old system of investment allowances,

and one presumes that he, amongst others, had something to do with the Government's policy of substituting the new investment grants for the old investment allowances. I well remember at the time that he said that he thought that some companies were receiving a refund of Income Tax which they had not paid.
The point is that we have a particular section of the industry which is now singled out for unfair treatment. Until the passing of the new Act a company such as this, leasing out tractors, qualified for investment allowances.
This was of immense help in trying to modernise British farm machinery. We are always hearing the Minister praising the contribution which British agricultural machinery is making to the export drive, and patting agriculture on the back for its investment and modernisation of British farming. If he really knows his stuff, which I doubt, and if he listens to some of his officials, he will know that the practice of leasing out farm machinery is one that has been growing very rapidly in the last few years.
It has been growing rapidly for a very good reason. What really set off this whole business of leasing out farm machinery were the attractions which the old investment allowances gave to farmers. This has happened not only in agricultural machinery, but also in all forms of plant, particularly civil contracting and civil engineering plant. This was development which allowed greater investment to take place. It allowed for better repairs and maintenance to be carried out on the machinery, and it made for much greater efficiency in the operation of the contractors of the machinery itself. It seems quite remarkable that this should now be denied to the agricultural industry.
My hon. Friend pointed out that this has had a particularly marked effect on the younger farmer, the farmer who starts off with little capital and who does not want to have to put down the cash for buying a lot of expensive equipment straight away. What are his alternatives? He either leases machinery or he buys secondhand machinery which is generally pretty unreliable. One of the reasons why small farmers have found it so hard in recent years to compete


is because they cannot afford to have modern machinery. The young farmer has to buy machinery on hire purchase. If, for example, he buys a £1,000 tractor on hire purchase, he has to pay something like 5½ per cent. on that purchase. In other words, he pays the loan off over a year and he incurs a charge of something like £55 or £60 for that tractor. The interest rate is in the region of 12 per cent.
This alone gets rid of all the grant which the Minister announced today. The hire-purchase charges wipe out the grant that the farmer might expect to get for buying a new tractor. Therefore, the young farmer with little capital is put in a very difficult position. Hire purchase is really no answer to him. He is denied the investment allowance. If he goes in for a hire system he is faced with the increased costs which will now be put on, because there is no grant or investment allowance.
This will hit the small man again. I have heard the Government pledge time and time again that they want to help the small farmer, that they want to keep the small man in business. Yet this is the sort of move designed to make life more difficult for him. What the Government never realise, when passing all this legislation of one sort or another, is that it does not catch the big man. The big man can always find ways around the legislation, or he is big enough to ride the storm. It is the small man who suffers. This is another example of it. We have been debating the Bill for 12 hours, but not one concession have we had from the Government. We have not been trying to fillibuster or keep the debate going. We have put forward points on which we feel strongly. This is another one. Is it too much to expect the Minister and the Secretary of State to see the logic of our case and accept the Amendment?

4.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: This very question was raised with me during the Christmas Recess when I met representatives of the National Farmers' Union in my area. In many rural areas of Scotland and elsewhere, there are contractors of one kind and another who are wholly engaged on agricultural contract-

ing work. I recognise that difficulty can arise in the case of contractors' investment allowances when they are engaged in agriculture and in other work as well, land moving specialists, for example, but I am concerned about those who work solely in agriculture.
Senior members of the National Farmers' Union in my area brought up the case of an agricultural drainage contractor who does nothing but farm drainage work. He had made tentative inquiries regarding his investment grant position—they were preliminary inquiries only, of course, because the Bill is not yet law—and he was given to understand that he would not qualify for special agricultural investment grant. He felt very sore about this because he understood that contractors engaged purely in forestry work would qualify.
The local N.F.U. put forward his case because it felt that there was discrimination against this contractor who was serving the interests of agriculture but who might, if he did not have the benefit of the investment grant, have to raise the charges for the work he was doing for agriculture. It was a clear-cut case of a small firm doing purely agricultural work and nothing else.
Apart from that specific question, there are the wider implications to which my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) referred in detail. Farmers are coming increasingly to rely on agricultural contractors, especially now that more sophisticated forms of farm machinery are being developed. Machinery is more expensive, and, on farms below a certain size, it is not an economic proposition for the farmer, even if he has the finance available to buy the machinery for himself. In many cases, it is far better to rely on the services of a contractor. Not only is there the question of high capital cost, but there is also the question of labour.
In our debates during the past 12 hours we have heard of the problems of getting farm labour in certain areas. In many cases farmers have had to cut their staff, for other reasons as well, to the absolute minimum necessary to keep routine work going. I know of farms where staffs have been cut to what is absolutely necessary for the running of the livestock enterprises. This has left insufficient staff to carry out the arable operations.
For weather reasons, arable operations often come at peak periods of the year. The farms then have to rely on a contractor when they do not have sufficient staff of their own to carry out operations such as ploughing and harvesting. In these circumstances, the agricultural community is becoming more and more reliant upon the services of contractors.
That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has done agriculture a service in putting forward the Amendment. Agriculture is more and more calling for contractors to do the work. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can see his way to give us the concession, for which we have been looking for so long, that contractors solely occupied in agriculture should qualify for these investment grants.

Mr. Hoy: It might be right that I should intervene at this stage to say a word or two. The hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had spoken sometime about people getting back tax which they had not paid. I had not the pleasure of being present when my right hon. Friend delivered that speech but I have a vivid recollection of the Public Accounts Committee saying that when I was a member. Therefore, if my right hon. Friend followed that precedent, it was a very good one.
Let us consider the aim of the grant. The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) was very eloquent about it. It is true that the letters which have been sent were written with the best intention and were intended to be explanatory. I am grateful to the hon. Member for thanking us for the courtesy which we always endeavour to show to any hon. Member who writes to our Department.
The aim of the grant, as of the grants under Clauses 31 and 33, is to provide investment incentives on a selective basis to replace the investment allowance for those owning agricultural land or engaged in agricultural production. They are not intended to replace allowances lost by finance houses which lease out agricultural machinery. Lessors will, however, to be able to claim instead a 30 per cent. initial allowance.
The farmer who hired machinery received no investment allowance in the past —I hope that hon. Members opposite are

not arguing that one—and will continue to be able to claim his rent for the machine as a business expense. This has always been available to him.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that he is doing the farming community something of a favour by allowing farmers to continue to charge their rental as a cost of doing business.

Mr. Hoy: I was doing nothing of the kind. I was pointing out the position. Hon. Members opposite sought to convey that this was something which had been taken from the farming community. [HON. MEMBERS: "No".] Oh, yes. And they meant an investment allowance if they meant anything at all.
I was pointing out that a farmer who hires machinery does not receive an investment allowance. He received no allowance in the past, and that will continue. It is not something new. I went on to say that he would continue to be able to claim his rent for a machine as a business expense. In other words, that arrangement will also continue; and I did not claim that that was something new, either. He will be able to claim a 30 per cent. initial allowance, and that is the proviso we have written in. In all the circumstances, I should have thought that that was a reasonable provision, and we are not prepared to go further than that.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Having listened to the Joint Parliamentary Secretary, I have the vision of there being two tractors in a field, both doing exactly the same job but one of them owned by the farmer, for which he is receiving a grant, and the other on hire by the farmer, for which he is not receiving a grant. This cannot be a sensible arrangement.
There is bound to be more hiring of machinery by British farmers. This will happen for obvious reasons, as it has happened in the United States. To begin with, modern farm machinery is becoming bigger and more expensive. Anybody who looks at an 18 ft. combine harvester in the fields of West Suffolk will appreciate how enormous these machines are. It is obviously wrong to insist that each farmer should, as far as possible, tie up large sums of capital in such equipment. It is far more sensible to spread the


capital efficiently by hiring these machines on contract.
This course is sensible because modern combine machinery can reap barley and wheat at such a speed that the entire crop of even the largest farm can be disposed of in a few days or weeks. It is absurd to ask farmers to buy more and more expensive machinery, merely to have it standing idle for the greater part of the year. It must be more efficient to hire these machines on contract.
Farm machinery is also becoming more specialised. Indeed, we are on the brink of having the sort of machinery that will do to the crops that are now picked what is being done to the crops that are reaped. There will soon be machines to pick peas, carrots, blackcurrants and so on. This is highly sophisticated machinery, but it is used for only a limited part of the year. It would be absurd to ask farmers to tie up their capital in this equipment.
Another consideration is the speed of technological development. Whereas it used to be, say, five years between one type of mechanism being introduced and an improved model being developed, today even one year makes the most profound changes in agricultural technology. If the Bill goes through in its present form, farmers will have all their capital tied up in machinery of this type and will not benefit fully from the accelerating rate of development in farm technology. Only by contract hiring can that be done, for the contract hirer can ensure that he has the biggest, best and most sophisticated machinery. None of these things is possible if we insist on each individual farmer financing his own machinery, owning it, and keeping it in his own garage. This is the experience in the United States: I have seen something of it in California and in the Middle West. It is coming to Britain as well.
4.15 a.m.
In my submission, the Minister's Clause as presently drafted stands in the way of this movement, this technological shift that is taking place in British agriculture. I ask him to recognise that it is illogical to distinguish between two machines in the same field, one of which is hired and the other of which is owned. Will

the Minister please look at the Amendment again?

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I could not understand the Parliamentary Secretary when he said that under the old system the owner of the machine did not get any investment allowances and therefore was no worse off today. The argument put by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) was that owing to the fact that the owner of the machine does not get this grant he is compelled to put up his hire charges. That seems to me to be the illogical part of the hon. Gentleman's argument. Under the old system the man got an investment allowance, and presumably, therefore, kept his hire charges on a moderate footing. If we have one tractor under the disability of having no grant its owner will be in a far worse position than the company, as I demonstrated earlier in this debate, buying tractors; a demonstration which the Minister quite rightly corrected by showing the position to be worse than I had thought.
It must be wrong again to produce this distortion, because the Minister's own National Agricultural Advisory Service, Cambridge Branch, produced for the Eastern Region a long paper on replacement policy for farm machinery in the light of the new arrangements, trying to explain them, and putting forward criteria that would assist farmers to make decisions whether or not to replace machinery.
One of the important sections deals with the question of whether it is worth hiring or leasing machinery. The N.A.A.S. stresses that this is a very good system where a machine is needed for a comparatively short period. It states:
If an additional tractor is required during one month of the year only to accomplish vital operations, it may be cheaper to hire this machine than to carry a spare tractor for the whole year to complete the required work in the critical period.
It goes on to point out that most of these hired machines are used very intensively. If the owner of the machine is any good at arranging his hirings, he sees that he does not get many blank periods.
From the point of view of the national interest, it is desirable that agricultural tractors should be used to the full, and every tractor that is made to work out its life fast is using the manufacturing


potential that has gone into it to the very greatest national advantage.
The Minister should therefore support any move which tends to make for the efficient and economic use of machinery. To leave in this new system a disability that operates against the hirer of machinery is a gross economic misjudgment, because all that will happen will be that the hirers of machinery will find their own replacements more and more expensive and will, therefore, have to charge very much greater hiring fees, and the farmers wishing to make economic use of hiring will probably be driven back to purchasing the machinery, which is much less economical from the national point of view.

Mr. Godber: I think that I should intervene at this stage. I was surprised when the Parliamentary Secretary rose to his feet earlier in the debate for I thought that he was going to accept the Amendment. He then gave a brusque reply which gave the impression that he wished to curtail the debate. I am sure he would not wish to do that.

Mr. Hoy: I did nothing of the kind. I said that I thought it might be advisable if I were to say what I did say; but I had no intention of curtailing the debate.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful for that assurance. But I think the hon. Gentleman will agree that when a Minister intends to accept an Amendment he usually rises to his feet early in a debate, and that when he does not intend to accept an Amendment he does not rise early. We therefore thought that the hon. Gentleman was going to accept the Amendment. The hon. Gentleman had not heard all the arguments, and I hope that when he and his right hon. Friend have heard all the arguments they will appreciate the full effect of this Amendment. The arguments advanced by my hon. Friends have been extremely powerful, but they have not been sufficient as yet to convince the Parliamentary Secretary. Perhaps he will bear with me while I reemphasise some of the points and express the serious attitude that we on this side of the House take to this Amendment.
This ties up with what the Minister himself said when we started our debate

some 12½ hours ago. He brought forward a new Clause which was intended, as I believe he said, to provide more flexibility in investment grants. I think he took credit for what he was doing, and he announced the higher rates, which we were glad to hear. But, in doing so, he drew our attention even more to the harshness of the cases where these grants do not apply. If they have been increased for some people, the fact that they are not provided for others makes the distinction harsher still. This makes the relevance of this Amendment even greater than when it was first put on the Order Paper.
My hon. Friends have made a very powerful case for the Amendment. It must be illogical for the Government to wish to dissuade farmers from following a course which is obviously very suitable in present conditions. The Minister will not require me to remind him that it is not many months since we were talking about agricultural credit. The whole purpose of this system which my hon. Friends have been describing has been to relieve farmers of the need for so much credit as they would require if they had to buy these expensive machines themselves. The Minister must know that the amount of borrowing in farming today is very high, and fie ought to be sympathetic to any means which will reduce the total overall borrowing. He should be helpful in a matter of this sort.
These Clauses relating to grants, and Clause 32 in particular, are intended to replace the old investment allowances, and they do so in a selective and discriminatory way. We did not ask, nor did the farmers ask, for the old investment allowances to be withdrawn and for these investment grants to be substituted for them. The Minister said that these matters had been fully discussed with the industry, but I am sure that he would not suggest that had the industry been given the opportunity to decide whether to retain the investment allowances or to choose investment grants, the farming community would have chosen the new investment grants in preference to the old investment allowances. That is not my impression. My impression is that the farmers are worried about these investment grants because they are not so satisfactory for them, but


they accept them simply because the grants are all that they will get.
What the Minister should remember is that they should not bear more harshly on one section of the farming community than on another. There is a growing tendency in some areas for machinery to be leased, and these investment grants, operating as they do, have a relationship here.
I propose to extend the charge in some degree. I wrote some months ago to the Minister because it had been pointed out to me that in the Industrial Development Act there was provision—it is in Section 4—for ensuring that owners of plant hired out in industry generally had the full benefit of the investment grants. Hon. Members know that there was plenty of criticism of that Act in so far as it affected industry, but industry was given an advantage where plant was leased out.
For agriculture, there is no such provision, and this shows an unfairness, not only as between farmer and farmer but as between farmers and industry. Surely the very first duty of any Minister of Agriculture is to see that agriculture gets at least as good a deal as industry. I have already said that I wrote to the Minister. That was in July last year, and he replied in his usual courteous way, but based his reply on the argument that leasing of machinery plays an important part in, for example, the construction industry, but not in agriculture. That is not so, and the Minister would do well to accept what has been said in the House about the spread of desire to lease machinery being not only one of the best ways of keeping that machinery in condition, but also of getting value for money from it.
The old argument about the girl's baby being only a small one and therefore not important is not a just argument for the Minister to produce in regard to the matter now under discussion. Although many are not affected, that is no argument at all for not letting them have the benefit of these grants. This is an expanding industry which is operating in accordance with accepted standards for the most efficient use of machinery and of credit facilities, and all this should be encouraged by the Minister and not actively discouraged.
So we have the set of arguments resulting from a comparison with the old investment allowances, and the other arguments of the comparison as between agriculture and industry. There is a very strong argument for providing the same facilities for both. It is the Minister and the Government of which he is a member who have taken away the more flexible investment allowances and provided instead these investment grants which are discriminatory in their effect and which cause unfairness as between one person and another.
We have now been talking for l2½ hours but have received not a single concession of any kind in relation to the Amendments we have put on the Paper. There is obviously a very strong case and I ask the Minister to concede the point and to let us have the Amendment so that we can proceed further with the Bill.

4.30 a.m.

Mr. Baker: I strongly support my hon. Friends. I consider that the Government Front Bench is not really au fait with the present farming position, particularly in the context of the Amendment. More and more farmers, especially in the north of Scotland, are turning to a new farming economy, in that we are trying to produce more home-grown foodstuff, particularly in the livestock-rearing area, and our whole economy is based on that.
As a result, our labour shortages, which are becoming more prevalent, are not confined to normal farm labour but include casual seasonal labour. On my farm we grow a great deal of grass for silage and hay, and our whole economy is based on the breeding and rearing of cattle. Right up until the end of April, and perhaps even into May, it is necessary to feed silage and hay to the out-wintered cattle. That is also the time when seeding, sowing and other cultivation must be going on.
It is therefore clear, in view of the shortage of labour, that it is essential that I utilise hired farm machinery, driven and operated by the hirer. It is not only finance houses that let out agricultural machinery. It is the small man in a small way in a small village who is helping me and many more farmers like me in the difficult circumstances in which we find ourselves.
That situation applies equally at the other end of the farming calendar at the time for cropping. We crop a minimum oat or cereal acreage in the kind of economy of which I am taking. We merely crop enough to enable our rotations to be kept on and the ground kept in good heart, and it is therefore uneconomic for us to own and operate combine harvesters. After the disastrous season we had during the latter part of last year it is essential that every possible opportunity should be taken to harvest the crop when the weather is right. There were previous few days last year when the weather was right.
It is therefore essential that we have the services of the hirers—not the big finance houses, but the smaller hirers who serve a very good purpose in letting out their machinery. If we do not give them incentives the whole farming economy, particularly of northern Scotland in the breeding areas, will suffer.
For those reasons, I strongly support he Amendment and even at this early hour of the morning I hope that common sense at least will come to the Government's rescue and they will accept the Amendment.

Mr. Kimball: When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary rose to reply, I, like my right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber), thought that he would at least give way on the very important point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins).
There can be no doubt that in June last the Government still had serious doubts about the application of Clause 32 and the point raised by my hon. Friend. In June the Minister published, as we had asked him to do in the Second Reading debate, a yellow booklet entitled "For your information" about all the grants that are available for farmers under the Bill. The booklet listed the amalgamation grants, the beef cow subsidy, grants for bracken control, building grants, the calf subsidy and many other grants. They numbered 47 in all, and I am glad to say that most of them were introduced by the Conservative Government. The present Government admit to having brought in only two.
The Government published the booklet as an up-to-date guide to all the grants

available to farmers, but the one that they did not include in the booklet—which is helpful so far as it goes—is that towards expenditure on agricultural tractors and harvesters, and the only reason why they did not put it in was that they had not made up their minds how it was to be applied and on the full content of the Clause and how it was to be worked.
The covering letter with the booklet tells one all about the leaflet relating to the farm improvement schemes and states that applications for investment grants cannot be accepted before the passing of the Bill but that the grant will be payable retrospectively on assets purchased on or after 17th January, 1966. The Government are perfectly clear in their mind that they are not going to pay the grant until the Bill is through, but, equally, they are not clear in the booklet about who will be able to get the grants and to what extent. I hope that the uncertainty that is reflected in the booklet will be cleared up by the Minister agreeing to put the matter right when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Monro: My right hon. Friend the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) was right when he said that the Government were being particularly short-sighted in making no concessions here. Also, my hon. Friends the Members for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) and Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) were right in stressing the point about the utilisation and productivity of machinery. We are all saying that times are changing and that more and more farmers are using fewer and fewer of the big machines because of the services offered by contractors. This is why it is so important that the Minister should accept the Amendment.
We ought to have accurate information —the Government have had plenty of time to produce it—about the trend of contracting. I wonder whether the Secretary of State for Scotland has information about how many contracting hirers there are, how many general agricultural contractors and how many forestry contractors. I know that the officials of the Department of Agriculture are desperately overworked. They are doing a magnificent job, and we praise them to the sky, but they are being given far too much work.
What is the position of a farmer at this moment when he is considering the situation concerning his machinery for the year? He has only a few choices. We know that today we are not going to get the grant for secondhand machinery, which has been so valuable particularly for the smaller farmer. Most farmers have no spare capital at the moment for new machinery. Certainly a 9 per cent. overdraft rate means that they do not want to borrow any. That rules out new machinery. There is also an extremely high rate of hire-purchase interest. That, too, is ruled out. One is reduced to contracting as the only alternative for getting on with the job, particularly at times of pressure at the beginning of the season and at harvesting in the autumn.
Two things are in desperately short supply in agriculture—confidence and capital, or credit. This is due to the Government's policy. They may well have devised this Bill in 1964, when they took over and the economy was buoyant. Now the economy is far from buoyant. Things can be done in a buoyant economy which cannot be done in the present situation of squeeze and depression.
It is very important that the Government should do all they can to help farmers by helping the contracting industry. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary said that these grants were for agricultural production. Surely agricultural contracting is purely to make agricultural production. The Ministry's thinking is muddle-headed on what is, to the farmers, a simple issue.
The hon. Gentleman said there would be discussions with the industry. We always hear about discussions with the industry. The N.F.U. is always being consulted. We never hear whether it has given agreement. We only hear about the Government's decision. We never hear detail about the discussions. We have had no concession from the Government today and it is high time the Minister took this matter seriously. He laughs with his colleagues but he does nothing to help the ordinary farmers. I strongly support the Amendment.

Mr. Hoy: Perhaps I may speak again.[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I think it might be convenient to the House if I

do. There has been considerable exaggeration. I hope that when the hon. Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) helps to pick the Scottish team he will use more intelligence than he did in his speech just now. Apparently he thinks that the £800 million deficit we inherited represented a buoyant economy. It was a distortion that he surely does not really believe.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball) made a great fuss about the yellow booklet. It was produced at the request of the farming community. It asked us to collate this information so that it could be easily seen and understood. Why he should have made such a speech about it I do not know.
I cannot say much more to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) except to remind him that, when he talks about two tractors working in adjacent fields, an investment grant could be paid on the one which was bought outright while 30 per cent. initial allowance could be claimed on the other.
4.45 a.m.
The right hon. Gentleman took the argument a little further and said that there was a distinction between industry, which was supported by the Board of Trade, and agriculture. There are differences. Board of Trade grants for industry and these incentives for agriculture cater for different needs and there are, therefore, essential differences between them. If this were not so, there would be no grants at all for tractors, because Board of Trade investment grants for industry do not extend to tractors.
I have listened to the argument for a fairly long time and I am willing to see how much further we can go to meet the request of hon. Members. I do not want to be stubborn. Hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite say that we have not given way on any issue, but I must point out that I have moved three or four Amendments to meet requests which where made in Committee and I have received the thanks of hon. Members for doing so. I am willing to have another look at this matter to see whether we can meet this request. I assure the right hon. Gentleman that, if we can, I shall certainly see that an Amendment is moved when the Bill goes to another place.

Mr. Godber: I am grateful for the undertaking which has now been given. If serious consideration is to be given to conceding on this point, then that is a useful development to which we shall look forward in warm anticipation in the hope that: in another place an Amendment will be introduced to meet the substantial case which has been made by my hon. Friends.

Mr. Peter Mills: Although the Parliamentary Secretary has said that he will look into this again, we have had that assurance before and nothing concrete has resulted. I may have a suspicious mind, but this looks like fobbing us off.

Mr. Monro: We had the most categorical promise about my march fence Amendment, but not a thing came of it.

Mr. Prior: I have a feeling that the only reason why the Government have given it to us is to get the business on.

Mr. Peter Mills: That is exactly what I felt, although I hope that it is not true.

Mr. Hoy: I can tell the hon. Gentleman now that that is not true. I never rise to say that I shall look at something without seriously meaning what I say. All hon. Members know that I have never done so. It is only when an hon. Member like the hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) makes that innuendo and insinuation, which is uncalled for, that I reply.

Mr. Prior: On a point of order. The Parliamentary Secretary has now made an insinuation against me which is quite unfounded and untrue. When my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) was speaking, the right hon. Gentleman was saying that the Government would withdraw their concession.

Mr. Peart: indicated dissent.

Mr. Prior: That is what it sounded like to my hon. Friend and to me. That is why I interrupted my hon. Friend to say that the Government were only trying to please us and not the farmers. That is what we were saying. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to withdraw his remarks.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): I do not think that that was a point of order. I think that the hon.

Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) should continue his speech.

Mr. Peter Mills: I should like to continue my speech. I was suspicious, but I will leave it at that.
I should like to support the Amendment. My hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) is a man of great experience. He always puts a case clearly and well. He is a spokesman for East Anglia. We in the West Country have not caught on to the idea of leasing or hiring tractors. I congratulate him on moving the Amendment. I am convinced of the importance of this new conception and I am prepared to encourage it now that I have heard the advantages, but one cannot do this if there is to be no grant for the tractors. That is why it is important that the grant should be extended to this way of using tractors.
If, as my hon. Friend says, the Americans are using it, then we shall be using this method all over the country before long and it is vital that we should have the grant. This is a good Amendment and I hope that the Minister will not only look into it, but will give a definite assurance that something will be done.
I can see that this would be a great help. Many small farmers in the South-West might hire a tractor for part of a year. This would help them in the difficult time they are going through. It would enable young farmers to avoid spending a lot on new tractors.
Many people, like the small farmer, the poor farmer and the younger farmer, have to make do with second-hand and worn-out tractors which are constantly breaking down and causing difficulty for them.
The conception of hiring or leasing tractors is excellent and the Government must be prepared to accept it. I hope they will encourage it. Many of the newer tractors on the market cost about £1,000. This is a tremendous amount for a young farmer to spend. I like the idea of a specialised maintenance service which the hirer will obviously do. It means that repairs can be carried out quickly because large stocks of spare parts will be carried, and breakdowns will be overcome more quickly. This is an excellent idea which I can recommend to many farmers in the South-West,


with the proviso that the Government are prepared to give a chance of a 10 per cent. grant.
If this were extended, I believe that profitability would rise. I wonder whether the agricultural community would be interested in this being pushed throughout the country.

Mr. Hawkins: By leave of the House I should like to ask the Joint Parliamentary Secretary to clarify the point that he was making. Is he now saying that he considers that his letter written to me was wrong and that he will reconsider my Amendment and not only the new point which my right hon. Friend raised? I cannot understand how, on 20th December, after a remark of mine, I was told categorically by letter that these grants will not be payable on machines leased or hired and now he can say that he will give way. If that is not the case and the Government will not reconsider this Amendment, I should like to vote upon it.

Sir Frank Pearson: I hope that the House will forgive me for intervening at this rather late stage, but I feel that I would be failing in my duty if I did not make a few comments on this Clause. I wish to take this opportunity to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) for having moved this vitally important Amendment. On many occasions in the past, in discussing agricultural matters I have, as a Member representing smaller, pastoral farms, cast rather jealous and envious eyes on the broad acres of East Anglia. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for having brought to my notice, as he brought to the notice of my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills), with very much the same type of constituency as myself, this extremely important lacuna in the drafting of this Bill.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: Will my hon. Friend accept that in agricultural matters what East Anglia does today the rest of the country gets on to tomorrow?

Sir Frank Pearson: The hon. Member is possibly parodying the phrase that Lancashire manufacturers know only too well, and in another sphere we would certainly claim to lead the rest. But in

agriculture, certainly from the point of view of arable production, I am prepared to admit that many areas of the country can learn many lessons from that extremely fine farming community.
I trust that I have the attention of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary because I want to put to him what I think is the first view that has been expressed on this Amendment from the north-west of the country. If I am wrong in this I apologise, but I believe it to be the first view that has been expressed.
5.0 a.m.
From an agricultural point of view, the north-west area of the country has in the past always carried a great deal of weight. It has its own particular problems. One of the main problems of farming in the North is the size of the farms, where one finds a relatively small acreage, often farmed by people who may well be short of capital. As my hon. Friend, the Member for Torrington pointed out, the cost today of buying a new tractor can be very considerable. Machinery is becoming more sophisticated. Many operations demand crawler tractors. I am pointing out the importance to the small farmer of the tractor that is hired out by machinery firms. It is this type of tractor which has been omitted from this Clause.
Although this Amendment has been proposed by a farming member from an East Anglia constituency, it is of the highest importance to the pastoral section of the country. I do not wish to delay the House or to over-labour this point, but I wish to thank the hon. Gentleman for the indication he has given us. We on this side are extremely grateful for the hint that he is prepared to have an entirely fresh look at this. I know that when he gives those assurances he means them. I know that at a later stage we can confidently expect that our point will largely be made, because had he not intended to do that, I cannot believe that he would have tried to fob us off with the statement that he was just going to look at this again.
Although we may have taken some little time in debating this Amendment, hon. Members on this side of the House will consider that their time has not been wasted. I shall look forward to the moment when the hon. Gentleman tables


his Amendment and shows us in quite clear terms that the pressure we have put behind this Amendment has been very worth while.

Mr. Kitson: As I have the largest constituency in England, with land similar to that of my hon. Friends the Members for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) and for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson), and also some good land like that of my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), I feel that I should say a few words. I am quite sure that my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Mr. Eldon Griffiths) hit the nail on the head when he told us a little about trends in American farming. I was sorry that he did not go on to say something about farming methods in Australia.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): Order. It would be quite out of order to deal with that on this Amendment.

Mr. Kitson: I was pursuing the question of the increase in the hiring of heavy machinery, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds referred. Only last year, when he came back from Africa, my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling) had to call on hired equipment to lift his potato crop because of the difficult season we had had. There is a growing shortage of labour on many farms today, and there will be a continuing tendency to hire farm machinery. This is why we on this side are extremely grateful to the Parliamentary Secretary for accepting the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, That further consideration of the Bill be now adjourned.
I move this Motion to enable the Government to state their intentions in regard to the Bill. We have had about 13 hours' debate so far. We all want to get on, but it is clear that there are strains. After one has carried on a debate for a considerable time, strains do develop, and I think that we should make better progress on a future occasion and b able to complete our discussions.
The Government have had difficulty in fitting the Bill into their timetable. They

have their programme problems. But I remind them that we were ready to debate this Measure before Christmas, and we are ready to continue at the first convenient time. There is no need to go on with such enthusiasm with the Iron and Steel Bill, for instance. Time can be found for this Measure.
It is bad for our discussion of legislation if, after a certain period of time, there is difficulty in maintaining concentration. We have done extremely well today. We are now past Amendment No. 50. The number put on the Notice Paper was intolerably burdensome for one day. We have done our best so far, and we are perfectly willing to continue if the Government so desire, but they ought to consider whether advantage is gained by continuing for very long periods of time.
If the Government wish to go on, we are quite ready to do so, but they should have some regard for the problems in trying to deal with important legislation in this way. The Third Reading is to come as well. I ask them to take into account the point we have reached and consider whether it would be appropriate to adjourn now. They could fit this business in again at the earliest possible moment, so that we could then discuss these matters further and give our full and undivided attention to the complicated provisions involved.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) assumes that some of his supporters are getting rather tired.

Mr. Godber: No.

Mr. Peart: This is what he said. If his hon. Friends are tired and lack concentration, I am very sorry. For my part, I am anxious to have this Bill. There are important grants and subsidies to be accorded to the farming community when it goes through. I hope, therefore, that there will be no attempt to delay the Bill. We have plenty of time now. I am anxious to discuss sensibly, as, I hope, all hon. Members will be, further important provisions which are on the Notice Paper, and I cannot accept the right hon. Gentleman's suggestion.

Mr. Prior: It is a bit much for the right hon. Gentleman to take that line.


We do not want to delay the Bill. We recognise only too well that there are a great many provisions in it which are needed by farmers today. The Government introduced the Bill as long ago as well before the Summer Recess. We are now left one day to discuss all these important outstanding items. Only in the last 20 minutes have we had any concession from the Government. It is all very well for the Minister to accuse some of my hon. Friends of prolonging the discussion. The Ministers could have given way earlier in the debate without any trouble.
Members of the Opposition do not have the resources that the Government have behind them. What is more, we have to be in the Chamber, whereas hon. Members opposite can go wherever they like to sleep. It is not unreasonable that at ten minutes past five in the morning we should ask to adjourn the debate and come back to it when we are fresh and can give more serious consideration to it tomorrow.
The Government could easily give another day for the Bill. They have brought us back a week early from the Christmas Recess. They have a majority of 100. No one will believe the Government when they say that the Opposition are obstructing the Bill. With a majority of 100, the Government know very well that they can get the Bill through quickly. All that the Opposition are asking for is reasonable time.
The farming community cannot say as a result of what has happened during the debate today that we have been in any way unreasonable. The country cannot believe that it is necessary for the Government to push all this through in one night. I therefore strongly support my right hon. Friend's Motion.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I support the Motion to adjourn at this stage. I feel it my duty to my constituents to give to the matters still before us in the Bill the most serious and careful consideration. It must be common ground between both sides of the House that it is humanly impossible at this hour to give the Bill the care and attention that our constituents, in particular our farming constituents, expect of us.
I must protest strongly at the Minister's suggestion that the farming industry might be delayed in receiving the grants that are its due on account of what has happened here tonight. The Minister knows very well that there is all the Parliamentary time in the world for the Bill to be achieved. The simple fact is that the Government Chief Whip is not prepared to let him have the time to complete the Bill in the manner that it deserves. The problem, as the Minister well knows, is not the Agriculture Bill. It is not the agricultural industry that the Government are considering. They are considering their timetable on steel and nothing else.
It is impertinent for the Minister to suggest other than that my right hon. and hon. Friends have shown in their speeches tonight and in the long Committee stages, which I have read, genuine concern for the agricultural industry. It does not lie in the mouth of the Government to say of the Conservative Party that we are in any sense holding up the agricultural in-industry's desserts in this matter. It is steel, and steel alone, that is getting in the farming industry's way.

Sir Frank Pearson: I should like to take this opportunity to support the Motion. I feel somewhat aggrieved when, time after time, we hear the Minister say that he has got to get the Bill through because the farming industry wants its grants. I have listened to the Minister say that for the past six months. He was very quiet on this point when, at the beginning of the Session, there was a delay of about three weeks before the Bill went into Committee—[An HON. MEMBER: "Six weeks".]—but we heard it the whole time that the Committee was debating the Bill.
5.15 a.m.
The Minister asked us to complete the Committee stage by a certain date. We did that. He then promised that the Bill would have completed its journey through Parliament before Christmas. What went wrong? Other Government business intervened, and the right hon. Gentleman's business was pushed to one side. The agricultural industry is beginning to appreciate that it has in the Minister a man who is incapable of standing up to the Government, on this occasion to the Chief Whip. That being


so, the right hon. Gentleman cannot now steamroller the Measure through, particularly since many of the Amendments are Government proposals. [Interruption.] I am pleased to see the Patronage Secretary entering the Chamber. The time has come when the Opposition should demand that the Bill be given adequate time for debate. Despite the important business—the proposed nationalisation of the steel industry—to be discussed tomorrow, there is no industry more important to Britain than agriculture. If necessary we will debate the Bill not only during the remainder of the night but right through tomorrow.
This Measure is of the utmost importance to the agricultural industry and must be given detailed consideration. The right hon. Gentleman cannot expect us to consider all these Amendments and then complete the Third Reading in one day.

Mr. Peter Mills: I strongly support the remarks of my hon. Friends, particularly as it is obvious that agriculture is rapidly becoming an Aunt Sally to be pushed around. The Government seem continually to be saying "It is only agriculture. It does not matter".
At one sitting we are expected to consider 120 Amendments, many of them tabled by the Government. We have dealt with 52 of them, or have not even got half way through them. Some vital issues will arise later. If the Minister thinks that he will get away with the rural development boards in an hour or two he is much mistaken. I regard that proposal as a nonsense and, like many of my hon. Friends, will want to debate that subject at length. Amalgamations, forestry and many other important issues will arise later and we must be given adequate time in which to debate them.

Mr. Jopling: It is well to go over the Government's delays and mistakes in respect of this Bill during the last 13 or 14 months. First of all, there was the delay in getting it into Committee last June. Then there was the help the Government received—

Mr. Robert Maclennan: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a gross abuse of the procedure of this House to delay the debate on this admittedly important

Bill by repetitious haverings over mattters that have been discussed ad nauseam?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly in order in a debate on the Question, "That further consideration of a Bill be now adjourned" to give reasons why further consideration should be adjourned. I do not think that anything said so far has been out of order.

Mr. Jopling: I am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for your Ruling.
I remind the House of the occasion last August when the Minister wanted to adjourn the Committee on, I think, the last Tuesday before the House rose for the Summer Recess. It was only the actions by hon. Members on this side that gave us that extra day. So do not let any hon. Member opposite start pretending that this Bill has been delayed in any way by hon. Members on this side.
We also had the delay in December, when we were told that we would have this Report stage. Then that was shuffled off, and here we are. It is quite unreasonable for the Government or any hon. Member opposite to suggest that after a Committee stage that lasted for 25 mornings, plus—and one cannot ignore this fact—a previous 14 sittings in the previous Parliament on a very similar Bill. There would have been considerably more than those 25 sittings in this Parliament had all those Amendments been taken from scratch again. The Minister knows very well that many arguments and discussions were not deployed a second time. There was no suggestion of our going over old ground again. We made faster progress in Committee in this Parliament with the earlier Clauses of this Bill because we had discussed them before.
This Bill had had a very long Committee stage. I have been doing a little arithmetic about our progress today. We have so far dealt with 16 Government Amendments. According to my count, which is not exactly accurate but is near enough, there are about 40 more Government Amendments to be discussed. Already, of the other Amendments listed we have taken 24 and there are 23 to come. In total we have roughly 40 Amendments of one sort or another, both Government Amendments and others, and there are about 63 to come. The 40 Amendments we have so far taken have


taken us roughly 13 hours, or a little longer—it was about that amount of time when I worked it all out. As it seems that there are still 63 Amendments to come, it would seem by my arithmetic that the remaining rather more than 100 Amendments will take us, at the present rate of progress, which has not involved any filibustering on this side—

Mr. Prior: Would not my hon. Friend agree that it is almost unprecedented for an Opposition, at this time of night, and with this sort of Bill, not to have sought to move the adjournment of the debate until after 5 o'clock in the morning? I think that shows that we have made a real effort to get this Bill through.

Mr. Jopling: That is an extremely fair point, and one well worth making.
If the present rate of progress with the Amendments is maintained, we shall not finish with the Bill until 1 o'clock on Thursday morning. If that is what the Minister wants, I hope that he will tell us. I am sure that we will be quite happy to go on. But I cannot think that the Minister believes that we shall get the best discussion and thought on the remaining 63 Amendments if we have to go all through the hours of Wednesday, today, and on to tomorrow, Thursday morning. It is quite unreasonable, and I thoroughly support the proposition, which I hope the Minister will accept.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I think that an agriculture Bill is rather different from other Bills because those of us who are rural Members are expected to know all the details of such a Bill and to be information officers to a large number of our constituents. This is unlike other major industrial Bills, when people actually working in the industry have all sorts of experts to turn to and do not expect from their Members the kind of detailed knowledge that our rural constituents expect.
That means that we need individually to follow the Bill as best we can. If we happen not to be on the Committee, as I was not—for the first time, I believe, since I came to the House—it means that the Report stage gives one an opportunity to understand the arguments and to find out the Government's intentions when

the Bill becomes law. This Bill is at least three Bills in one. Therefore, it throws a great burden on the non-Standing Committee agriculture Members. There are 1,200 columns in HANSARD of the Committee stage, and I must say that the extracts that I have read are pretty concise for a long Standing Committee. One can ascertain the arguments very well by reading HANSARD. Even so, it is surprising how many points were not taken in Committee—no doubt, because of a desire to make progress.
It is surprising how many ambiguities still remain in the Bill, about which we shall be asked; and it is also surprising, considering the length of time that the Bill has been in the House and in the Department, how uncertain the Government's own mind is as to the effect of the legislative proposals. This is a very great worry. The Government think they have an aim, and then generally they produce legislation which in practice is likely to produce results far removed from their intentions or expectations. Unless we go through the Bill on Report in some detail and get the Government's explanations, we are not in a position to fulfil our duty to our constituents.
This is particularly hard on the very first day after the recess, because most of us have had a lot of work awaiting us on our return. There are the usual beginning of term arrangements to make, with all the appointments and so on to be sorted out, and therefore to start off with an all-night sitting, to be followed by two of the most intensive days, and possibly nights, on the Steel Bill is a very poor start for us.
However, we are free to come and go as we like; and I should like to make a plea for the staff. The staff are being landed with an all-night sitting on their first day back after the recess. They, too, know what lies ahead of them for the rest of the week. I cannot help feeling that in the interests of the House as a whole, and not just of the Members who are in the Chamber at the moment, we should consider adjourning the proceedings. Those of our colleagues who have an important Measure to debate will want to be as well served by the staff as can be. It seems to me to be foolish as well as inconsiderate to tire them out


at the very beginning of what is to be as hard a time as they can expect to have in the whole year.

5.30 a.m.

Mr. Monro: I support my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill) and make a plea for those hon. Members who were not on the Standing Committee which considered this Bill. Those from agricultural constituencies who did not serve on that Committee should, because of that very fact, have the opportunity to take as full a part as possible in our present discussions. Yet, having said that, I must point out that to ask hon. Members to be in the Chamber without a break for so long a period means that one cannot possibly keep a proper grasp on all the matters in this most complicated Bill. To ask hon. Members to keep their noses to the grindstone for hour after hour after hour is wrong.
I do not want to be controversial, but the Government were warned of what would happen. In the last business statement made before the Christmas recess, hon. Members opposite were told that it would be impossible to complete this Report stage in one sitting. Yet here we are, less than half way through the Report stage, with still the Third Reading to come. It is time that the Patronage Secretary came forward from wherever he has gone and told the House that we have done enough for one night. We should be relieved of the onerous duty of completing this stage of the Bill.

Earl of Dalkeith: We have still to reach one of the most complex parts of the Bill; that is, the part dealing with forestry and, in that connection, I accept some small amount of blame because some of the Amendments which I have tabled were put down after the programme for this stage of the Bill was announced. Perhaps I should personally take a share of blame, but I think it important that we should adjourn now and start again at a more reasonable hour because some of the Amendments are complicated. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite, as well as we on this side of the House, should be fresh if there is to be a proper assessment of these Amendments.
I must not discuss any of my own Amendments, but I would say that they do not deserve the very cavalier treatment

which has been shown by the Government at times in this highly important debate. The Government should be more forthcoming than they have been so far and I hope now that the Patronage Secretary has something to tell us. I would conclude by telling him that if a free vote was allowed on this Motion, I am certain that hon. Members opposite would be only too willing to support us.

Mr. William Edwards: I think it is often thought by some people that any debate in this House on the subject of agriculture is the prerogative of hon. Members opposite, but, so far as the tactics which have been employed by the Opposition tonight are concerned, I think one could say that the farmers will not look upon hon. Members opposite as the true friends of agriculture. I wish to pursue no party point, but the farmers' interests should have been served long ago as they are being served by the second part of this Bill. The farmers have been waiting for that for a long time. While I readily agree that hon. Members opposite are completely sincere in their farming interest, it is very wrong for them to try to ruin this debate by trying to use it as an attempt to frustrate the passing of the steel nationalisation Bill.
It is obvious to some of us on this side of the House that the brave country and county Members on the Opposition benches are being bullied by their new type of party tacticians to try to use this debate to frustrate the passing of the Iron and Steel Bill. That shows how out of date they are. It is obvious to me that the Opposition have now abandoned the policy of trying to frustrate the passing of the Government's business by filibustering and are now relying on the smear tactics followed by their sycophantic friends in the Press.

Mr. Godber: We have had a discussion on the Motion, which I moved in the most reasonable terms in the hope of encouraging the Government to accept it straight away. It seemed to me that we had made very good progress. I do not propose to follow some of the extravagant remarks made a few moments ago, because they do not bear any relation to what we have done on the Bill. We have bent over backwards all the time to facilitate its passage. It was not our fault that it was delayed for two


months before going to Committee, and it was not our fault that this stage was not taken before Christmas. We cooperated with the Minister in getting the Committee stage completed on the day he wanted.
We have carried on until after five o'clock before we even tried to inquire whether the Government would leave over the rest of the business to take at a more reasonable hour. We tried all the time to help, and made that abundantly clear. We feel the need for the Bill; we are in contact all the time with the farmers and know that, although they are not particularly in favour of some of its provisions, the Minister has tied certain grants to it, and naturally we want to see no delay over that.
We feel that with co-operation we can make progress and complete the Report stage, if that is what the Minister wishes to do, before we rise today. If he can do that and give us the Third Reading debate on another day—we think that we should have at least half a day for it—I think that that is a reasonable proposition to put to him and we can then withdraw the Motion.

Mr. Peart: I accept that. I think that one should be reasonable. We will get the Report stage now; and we will have Third Reading another day.

Mr. Godber: I understand from the Minister that he accepts that we shall have a half-day debate following this to deal with the Third Reading, provided that we finish this stage. We will aim to get the remainder of the Report stage before we rise this morning. If we can go ahead on that basis I think that that should give us time to complete the Report stage and then take Third Reading another day.
In the light of that assurance from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Motion [HON. MEMBERS: "No".]

Question put and negatived.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Am I right in thinking that as a result of a deal that has been made behind Mr. Speaker's Chair those of us who sit on the back benches are now advised that we have a certain amount of time to discuss our constituents' affairs but no more, and that at some future stage, again as a

result of a deal, we shall have a half day for the Third Reading? I want to ask
you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. That is not a point of order. The convenience or the conduct of the usual channels is not a matter for the Chair. The Amendment to be discussed is Amendment No. 53.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I must ask if you will be so kind as to answer a question. Am I right in understanding that the position is that any further discussion of the matter will be terminated today when the Report stage is finished, and that the only other opportunity that I shall have to put the point of view of my constituents in the House will be on some halfday yet to be determined?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry. I understand the hon. Gentleman's anxiety, but this is not a matter for the Chair. The Chair must proceed with the business until such time as a Motion is accepted by the House which terminates the business.

Amendments made: No. 53, in page 38, line 29, at beginning insert:
 Subject to any order under section (Power to vary rates, and extend scope, of grants for agricultural investment) of this Act".

No. 54, in line 41, leave out from beginning to end of line 9 on page 39. — [Mr. Pearl.]

Clause 33.—(SUPPLEMENTS TO IMPROVEMENT AND WATER SUPPLY GRANTS.)

Amendments made: No. 55, in page 39, line 24, after "equal" insert:
(subject to any order under section (Power to vary rates, and extend scope, of grants for agricultural investment) of this Act)".
No. 56, in line 40, leave out "subsection (6) below" and insert:
any order under section (Power to vary rates, and extend scope, of grants for agricultural investment) of this Act ".

No. 57, in page 40, leave out lines 12 to 28.—[Mr. Peart.]

Clause 35.—(SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS AS TO GRANTS UNDER PART II.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 58, in page 41, line 39, at the end to insert:
(5) The provisions of the Settled Land Act 1925 relating to improvements authorised by


that Act (including those provisions as extended to trusts Or sale by section 28 of the Law of Property Act 1925) shall, if it is so provided by regulations under this section, have effect as if works of any description specified in the regulations, being works of a kind mentioned in Schedule 4 to this Act or prescribed by a scheme under section 26 above, were included in Schedule 3 to that Act (which sets out the improvements so authorised, distinguishing in Parts 1, it and III between improvements the costs of which are not liable to be replaced, may be required to be replaced, and must be required to be replaced) and were contained in the Part thereof specified in the regulations.
(6) In the application of subsection (5) above to Northern Ireland—

(a) for any reference to the Settled Land Act 1925 and to Schedule 3 to that Act there shall be substituted references to the Settled Land Act 1882 and to section 25 of that Act, respectively;
(b) the words from '(including those provisions' to 'Law of Property Act 1925)' and from ' distinguishing in ' onwards shall be omitted.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allow capital money arising from a settled estate to be used on works of a kind which may be grant-aided under the farm amalgamations, farm improvement and hill land improvement schemes. This point was raised in the Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. More), and we agree that it ought to be covered.
The Amendment provides for the necessary arrangements to be made by way of regulations made by the appropriate Minister under the Bill. The works concerned are the farm improvements listed in Schedule 4 to the Bill and any item eligible for grant aid under a farm amalgamation scheme made under Clause 26 or a hill land improvement scheme made under Clause 39.
The regulations will be able to provide that any of these items shall be treated as if they were included in Schedule 3 to the Settled Land Act, 1925. That Schedule lists the improvements on which capital money arising from a settled estate may be used, and is divided into three parts. Part I lists items the cost of which does not have to be replaced by instalments. Part II shows those whose cost may be required to be so replaced by the trustees of the settlement or the court. Part III sets out works for which the cost must be replaced by instalments.
The regulations under the Bill will specify into which part of the Settled Land Act Schedule the various improvements under this Bill are to be treated

as falling. There is corresponding provision for Northern Ireland, but not for Scotland where there is no comparable settled land legislation.
A precedent for dealing with a comparable situation by way of regulations exists in Section 11 of the Hill Farming Act, 1946. The regulations will be subject to the usual negative Resolution procedure.
I am sure, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ludlow will agree, that this is a useful Amendment and that it will command general support. I am personally grateful to the hon. Member for drawing attention to the matter.

5.45 a.m.

Mr. More: I thank the Minister for having taken notice of the suggestion I made in Committee. When I raised the matter, I was afraid that it would be regarded as a piece of legal antiquarianism to do with out-moded standards. It was far from that. What this deals with is the two developments which have, perhaps, been more notable than anything else in agriculture in recent years. The first is the immense development of capital investment which has been and still has to be made. The second is the large element of new blood which is being drawn into farming personnel in terms of owner-occupiers.
I thought it rather regrettable that I found it necessary to raise this in Committee. One would have hoped that it might have been recognised in advance, when the Bill was being drafted, and that some serious effort might have been made to revise the whole of this legislation in a comprehensive form to make it easily intelligible to farmers, owners and their professional advisers. We must be thankful for small mercies. Without wishing to sound disparaging, I describe this as a small mercy because, grateful though I am for the recognition this Amendment implies, it is but a small nibble at what needs to be done.
The fact facing those engaged in agriculture is the immense scale of capital development regularly and constantly required to keep farming modernised. Even with grants from the Government, the cost of these necessary improvements and investments can be prohibitive. It is therefore imperative, if agriculture is to maintain modernisation on the scale


required, that all possible sources of capital should be available. In many cases, owners need grants both under the Settled Land Act and this Bill.
This is now clearly a matter which cannot be dealt with in this House. I hope that it will be dealt with in another place when the Bill reaches there. What is needed is a completely revised code for all this legislation. I point out the extraordinary discrepancies which strike the eye when one compares this Bill with the Settled Land Act.
Schedule 3 of the Settled Land Act and Schedule 4 of this Bill to a large extent deal with the same general problem of capital investment in farming but the discrepancies and differences are often so great and often so small as to be quite incongruous and ridiculous. Let us take a few examples. Some of the improvements for which the Bill provides do not appear to be eligible for grant under the Settled Land Act. Conversely, many things considered necessary in the Act do not appear in this Bill. Yet both have the same objective—the encouragement of capital investment in farming.
The first case for which the Bill provides is the erection, alteration, enlargement or reconditioning of permanent farm buildings and so on. The Settled Land Act is far from specific about that, although it mentions farm buildings. The interesting subject of sewage disposal is the second item in the Bill—sewage disposal other than from dwelling houses. The Settled Land Act deals with drainage and the distribution of sewage as manure. Are the two Measures saying the same thing, or different things?
The Bill refers to bridges, railway crossings and creeps while the Settled Land Act talks about bridges, but says nothing about railway crossings and creeps. Fourthly, there is the provision or laying on of electric light or power for agricultural purposes, while the Settled Land Act deals with heating apparatus, electric power apparatus, engine houses, engines, gasometers, dynamos and so on. Here, again, the two do not correspond. So it goes on. The 14th item in Schedule 4 of the Bill is claying and marling. We do not know much about claying in our part of the world.

The Settled Land Act says nothing about this subject.
What does the Amendment do? When I raised this subject in Committee I asked that Schedule 4 of the Bill should be harmonised with Schedule 3 of the Settled Land Act, but, apparently, what the Bill enables the Minister to do is to put individual improvements into the Settled Land Act Schedule according to his discretion. This is putting new wine into old bottles, sometimes with explosive effect, because the Bill also appears to give the Minister discretion as to whether he puts these things in Part I, Part II or Part III of the Settled Land Act Schedule.
That has great and important effects on people interested in Settled Land Act land and could affect the position of trustees, a tenant for life, or the remainder. Surely it is wrong that financial liabilities of that kind should be affected in this way by Ministerial discretion in a Bill which deals not with trustees, but with agriculture.
What I urge upon the Government is that before the Bill goes to another place—and I hope that not so long will be spent on it there as here, and I speak as one who sat through 20 months of the Standing Committee—the Government will have a look at the whole of this issue to see whether they can seize this opportunity to devise a sensible and thought-out code which is comprehensive and designed to do sensibly what the job ought to be, which is to enable owners who are engaged in farming to call upon their trustees for capital money for sensible improvements in everything which conduces to agricultural modernisation.
With that slightly critical thought, I give my professional blessing for a small mercy and thank the Minister for having taken notice of my proposal.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 43.—(RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move Amendment No. 61, in page 47, line 31, to leave out "or needs".
This Amendment is to make it clear that I do not think that there is any need for this type of development board


in this country. Speaking as a Conservative, I am highly critical of these boards and of this type of Government interference. Perhaps the need for these development boards can be proven in Scotland because of the depopulation which, for various reasons, has occurred there and because of Scotland's particular problems. I do not think it is necessary to have the development boards in the rest of the country. I am much opposed to any furtherance of this type of Government interference. To me it is just another expansion of Socialism. It will mean more civil servants, more people telling others what to do, more jobs with sweeping powers of control.
The Government should create a climate where existing businesses can flourish, and do their own job. That is surely the duty of any Government. Existing organisations are doing a good job, particularly those in the South-West, but they could do better with more encouragement and more financial help. We have the National Agricultural Advisory Service, the county councils, national park authorities and so on, doing a fine job in these areas and respected there. Where is the need for further boards and officials?
If the argument is that these areas are depressed and depopulated, look at what has gone on in those areas and what the present administration has done for them. The administration has imposed a severe burden on them, and this is no help to people in the areas where development boards may be set up. We have had further taxation, the Selective Employment Tax, rural bus operators have been caned, to say the least, and private industry has been squeezed out and upset.
Some of those areas have difficulty enough without what the present administration has imposed. Instead of setting up these development boards, the Government should look to themselves and start being a help and creating a climate before creating fresh boards. The Minister has not proved the need for development boards, particularly in the South-West where I have shown—[HON. MEMBERS: Order.]

Mr. Mills: Mr. Deputy Speaker, am I out of order? I should not have thought so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): I have not heard anything out of order at the moment.

Mr. Mills: The Minister has not shown the need for these development boards. In Committee he never gave concrete reasons why we should have them.
I beg the Minister to consider this Amendment. I cannot see why it is necessary to have these boards, except possibly in Scotland and I hope we shall never see an expansion of this type of body in the South-West.

6.0 a.m.

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) should have deployed a general argument about rural development boards. The Amendment does not deal with the main arguments for or against boards. I thought that there was common agreement in Committee and that the Opposition had officially accepted them, although I appreciate that they may seek to improve the legislation.
I am dealing specifically with the Amendment. I am not going to be involved in a major argument on rural development boards. I would be out of order.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. It would help the House if I say that, on consideration, I think that the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) did go rather wide of the Amendment. It would be unfair if, in those circumstances, the right hon. Gentleman had to reply to the whole of the hon. Member's argument.

Mr. Peart: The effect of the Amendment, in the context of subsection (1) would appear to be to allow the Minister to establish a board in an area with special problems of development, and not in an area having only special needs. The intention may be to confine the designation of areas to those which have problems of farm structure, as described in subsection (2) whether or not they have special needs described in that subsection. I could not accept this Amendment and I would have to resist it if the hon. Member were to press it.

Mr. Godber: The Minister has not gone very far. He seemed rather shy of


dealing with the points made. In Committee my hon. Friend the Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills) made abundantly clear his own feelings about the rural development boards. While we have not opposed them in principle, we have never expressed great enthusiasm for them. This is a position which we established in Committee.
There are certain possible jobs that can be fulfilled, but we are also suspicious of an extension of these bodies and their wide powers. It is this which my hon. Friend was anxious to limit in the Amendment. It may have been of a limited nature but it shows the strong feeling which he and other of my hon. Friends have about the powers of these boards.
I am sorry that the Minister was not able to say more about the points raised. However, we have discussed the boards at considerable length in Committee and I do not wish to unduly delay the consideration of this point. We shall be watching very carefully the way in which these boards exercise the powers given to them and we have a certain number of other Amendments designed to limit in some degree the wide functions that they have, to which we shall come later.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 46.—(PROMOTION OF AMALGAMATIONS AND BOUNDARY ADJUSTMENTS BY RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Mr. Godber: I beg to move, Amendment No. 64, in page 50, line 24, after 'acquire', insert 'by agreement'.
We now come to one of the Amendments to which I was referring a minute ago, designed to limit the powers of the rural development boards. The Amendment seeks to insert the words "by agreement" in relation to the boards' powers to acquire land. This is an important limitation. We recognise that. The type of thing to which we are strongly opposed is bodies of this kind having powers to acquire land in any circumstances. If a board acquires by agreement, then the other powers which it has in this Clause are not thought to be excessive. But if, in fact, it does not have to obtain agreement in order to acquire, then it seems that this is widen-

ing its powers very much indeed. Subsection (4) of Clause 44 sets out its main functions. Twice in Clause 44 (4,a, b and c) the acquisition is by agreement. Under the Clause which we are now considering, it goes wider. It says:
Without prejudice to the generality of section 44…a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire,
There is no reference to agreement. That is why we feel that the Government are widening and broadening the powers of the rural development boards in a serious way, and we have been given no adequate justification for this.
We invite the Minister to tell us why the words "by agreement" have been omitted here; why he has not been able to include them and so limit the power of the rural development boards in this regard. If the words "by agreement" do not appear here, it means that compulsory powers are envisaged in regard to Clause 46, and we look on these compulsory powers with grave suspicion.
I would ask the Minister to consider the matter again. If he tells me that my reading of it is wrong and that there is no question of compulsion, then he will relieve our minds, but if he cannot, then he must tell us the reason why these powers are required, which are substantially beyond anything proposed in Clause 44.

Mr. Peart: I can assure the right hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members that Clause 46 conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. If we wanted to do so, we should have to make specific provision for it. The purpose of the Clause is to give the board the same power as the Minister to enter into transactions involving loss for amalgamation purposes and to apply Schedule 3 by deed to holdings amalgamated in this way. It follows closely the wording of Clause 29.
If the Amendment were accepted it would make no difference to the Clause and it is preferable not to write unnecessary words into the Bill. I am advised that the courts, in interpreting a Statute, work on the basis that Parliament has intended every word to have some meaning. Therefore, if a phrase is inserted qualifying some word which does not need explanation, or a word which is used elsewhere without the qualifying


phrase—in this case, in Clause 29—the courts will strive particularly hard to find a distinction in the meaning, and difficulties could arise.
I assure hon. Members that the words of the Amendment are unnecessary, and I hope they will agree that we should not leave a puzzle to posterity by including the words in the Amendment. I hope the hon. Member will not press his Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: In view of what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the addition of words not making any difference to the Clause, I should have thought that there was an argument for his accepting them. I believe it will be crucial to the success of the rural development boards that they should function within the atmosphere of co-operation. While we will be only too ready to accept any assurances, we have to remember that there will be a large number of able people throughout the country who will be reading this Bill when it becomes an Act, and we should try to interpret what it means. If these words would not alter the sense of the Clause and would do no harm, it would be much better to accept them because they would help to cultivate the right climate of opinion in which people would be ready to cooperate more fully with the development boards and make their task that much easier.

Mr. Henry Clark: The Minister assures us that every word in every Bill must have a certain amount of meaning. We can now play "hunt the slipper", and it would not be long before we found meaningless words in almost every Bill.
My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) hit the nail on the head. Anything which makes the powers of the boards seem more reasonable is likely to make their success a good deal more likely. It will not have escaped notice that later in the subsection there is reference to
allowing the occupier of an uncommercial unit to retain occupation of a dwellinghouse
If he can be allowed to retain occupation, presumably he can be disallowed, and we are right back to evictions. We are giving these rural development boards powers which the Socialist Party would be horrified to see given to a modern landlord.
Draconian powers are to be given to these boards. Northern Ireland to a man has completely rejected the idea that we should have a board at all.

Mr. Peart: Northern Ireland does not have to have one.

Mr. Clark: That is quite right. We do not have to have one, and the Minister can then avoid providing the money. These boards are a classic piece of Socialism. First, we are told of the existence of a problem, and no one will deny that a problem of some sort exists. Then it is suggested that a board be given certain powers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Sydney Irving): Order. The hon. Gentleman is going rather wide of the Amendment.

Mr. Clark: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. On a matter like this, one gets rather carried away. The wording of the Bill is so strong that the Government of Northern Ireland have said that they do not intend to proceed with a rural development board for Northern Ireland. The National Farmers' Union has told me that it would not touch it with a barge-pole, and almost every land owner in Northern Ireland—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Despite his regret, the hon. Gentleman is still pursuing the same course. The Amendment is merely to insert the words "by agreement". The hon. Gentleman must now come within order.

Mr. Clark: With respect, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am following the point made by my noble Friend. The wording of the Bill and the Draconian powers to be given to the boards are the very things likely to detract from the success of the boards when they once exist. Those not in the fortunate position of being able to resist the imposition of a board are frightened off by the terrifying powers they are to be given.

Sir Frank Pearson: rose—

Mr. Peart: I think that it might be helpfull if I intervened briefly at this point to respond again to the question raised by the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber). I assure the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) that Clause 46 conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. That is quite definite. I have explained the legal


difficulties. If hon. Members consider this, I am sure they will agree that what I am saying is correct. I hope, therefore, that they will not press this too much.

6.15 a.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: May I clarify one point with the Minister? It concerns the occupier of an uncommercial unit within an area controlled by a development board. Can I rest completely and absolutely assured that that board will not have the power to acquire without agreement an uncommercial unit?

Mr. Peart: I have said so.

Sir Frank Pearson: If I may have that absolutely firm assurance, I shall be satisfied.

Mr. Peart: I have given that assurance twice.

Mr. Hawkins: I have heard what the Minister has said about this matter. As a layman, but one who has a lot to do with agricultural land, I should have thought that the words
a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire".
must mean that it has power to acquire land whether the other person wants it or not. If that is not the meaning, why not put in "by agreement"? That would be a sensible thing to do. The Minister could do it if he wanted to. I cannot believe that it would upset some legal gentlemen in his Department too much.
It would be far better for the start of rural development boards, if we have to have them, to have the right sort of atmosphere and to make sure that nobody misunderstands the meaning of these words. Anybody could well understand the meaning of
a Rural Development Board shall have power to acquire by agreement".
There would be no need to go to a lawyer to spend money on an interpretation. There would be no risk of getting two contradictory opinions about it. The inclusion of these words would remove doubt. I still hope that the Minister will accept these two words, thereby making the position much clearer to the average man on the land.

Mr. Godber: I rather share the view which my hon. Friend the Member for

Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Hawkins) has just expressed. The Minister has given a categorical assurance about this. He has also explained that one should not put superfluous words into the Bill. Following his argument, however, I must ask him why, in Clause 44, we have the words "by agreement", and more than once. I find this extremely difficult to understand. In Clause 44(4), we have the words "acquire by agreement" in lines 25 and 31.
We were being logical in suggesting the insertion of "by agreement" in Clause 46. The point is precisely the same. If we are told that these words are unnecessary in one place, why are they necessary in the other place? If this does not make any difference to the meaning of the Bill, surely the point reiterated by my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk, South-West has great emphasis in that one of the problems is that people seeking to interpret Acts of Parliament like to have them in the simplest possible form. With the words "by agreement", there can be no question about the meaning.
As the Minister refers us back to Clause 29, I refer him to Clause 44 and ask why these words were appropriate there if they are not appropriate where we suggest them. Clause 29 refers to other Acts and in brackets states
powers of acquiring land by agreement".
If we have the words "by agreement" in reference to those other enactments, why cannot we have them where we suggest in Clause 46? I am sorry if I am being dense.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) is correct. I was advised about the legal position. As I pointed out, the Clause conveys no powers of acquisition other than by agreement. For that reason I argued that to make the Amendment would not alter the operation of this part of the Bill. However, I am prepared to look at the matter again. Provided that there are no legal difficulties, I will consider the proposal favourably. With that assurance, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Godber: In the hope that the right hon. Gentleman will not encounter any


legal difficulties and in view of his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 47.—(CONTROL OF SALE OF CERTAIN LAND.)

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 124, in page 52, line 25, to leave out 'two months' and to insert 'one month'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be convenient if the House discussed, at the same time, Amendment No. 125, in line 31, leave out 'two' and insert 'six' and Amendment No. 134, to Clause 50, in page 59, line 39, leave out 'two months' and insert 'one month'.

Earl of Dalkeith: That is satisfactory, although Amendment No. 134 is concerned with the planting of trees.
Amendment No. 124 is designed to shorten the period to one month, which would be a more suitable time. Indeed, I have been pressed to seek to make the period 21 days on the ground that the board would presumably be thoroughly conversant with all the relevant facts and considerations concerning any applicant in that time.
Another reason for making the change is because a farmer may decide to give up his farm—or it may be a farm tenant or an owner-occupier, perhaps one who has died—in January, February or March. It is customary, certainly in Scotland, for the change-over to take place at Whitsun. As drafted, one would have to wait for two months under the Bill, if the farmer died in January, before the board would give its decision about whether or not the land could be transferred. If the farmer died in January and one had to wait those two months, it would be March and very little time would be available in which to advertise the land to let or for sale. This could result in considerable embarrassment to the industry.
Amendment No. 125 has been Tabled because the period of two months is too short. I propose that it should be six months. This is because, if an applicant who is seeking to transfer land and who has been refused consent wishes to lodge an appeal, a considerable time may elapse

while he is preparing for the appeal. His solicitors may be on holiday. Anything could happen to delay the preparation of the appeal.
Amendment No. 134 relates to the granting of licences for the planting of trees. I suggest that the time should be reduced to one month because one might be left waiting for an answer at a critical time of the year, perhaps in November or December; the most opportune time for the planting of trees. If, as a result of two months' delay, one was unable, perhaps because of a severe winter extending through January, February and March, to plant the trees until April, it might be too late to do the planting. Thanks to the board not granting its licence in two months instead of one, one might find oneself with a large number of plants to be carried over to the next year, and a great deal of expense could be involved. I therefore suggest that these Amendments are perfectly reasonable, and I am quite sure that once the rural development board has been constituted it would agree that these times would be reasonable.

Mr. Peart: Since the noble Lord put down these Amendments we have given them every consideration. Amendment No. 124 is apparently intended to ensure that the applicant would be given a decision on his application to transfer land within one month. The purpose of Amendment No. 134 is apparently to ensure that a board reaches a decision quickly on whether or not to grant a planting licence and notifies the applicant of that decision within one month. We consider that two months is a reasonable period to give the board to consider such applications, bearing in mind that there may be a need for a board's officer to make a visit of inspection, or perhaps to discuss the application with the applicant.
I should remind the hon. Member that two months is the longest time a board is allowed to take in reaching a decision, and I would expect that in many cases it would be possible for the Board to consider an application and notify the applicant of its decision in much less than the maximum period.
The purpose of Amendment No. 125 is apparently to allow a person whose application for consent to the transfer of land has been refused more time in which


to decide whether or not to appeal to the Minister against the board's decision. We think that two months is a reasonable period for an applicant to make up his mind whether or not to appeal to the Minister against the board's decision, even if he wishes to take legal advice. To allow six months for a decision of this nature to be reached would unduly delay a final decision.
I know that the hon. Member has been urging that the board, which will have no knowledge of the land before an application for consent is received, should make up its mind on the transaction within one month. Is it unreasonable to expect the owner, who knows all about the land and the proposed transaction, to decide whether to appeal within two months? I should have thought that this time would be adequate. I would remind the noble Lord that under Section 24 of the Agricultural Holdings Act, 1948, a tenant farmer has only one month in which to lodge a counter notice if he gets a notice to quit. I have carefully looked at these points, but I must ask the House to reject these Amendments.

Mr. Hawkins: The control of the sale of land within the development board's area will put a blight on such sales within the whole area. There could presumably be a lot of land there that could be for sale, and the two months in which to apply before one starts even making preparations to sell seems to be an extraordinarily long period. It could easily put a blight on the sale of land. One cannot control the deaths of owners. One has to sell as quickly as possible, and at the right time, to ensure that one cashes in at the right time. To have to apply to the board and wait for two months before one can start one's sale preparations, not knowing whether one will receive permission or not, seems to me to be an unnecessary hamper on business activities of a normal nature on which people rely for their living, by which executors might lose a lot of money.
6.30 a.m.
I do not know whether the rural development board will be responsible for any loss due to this delay, but it seems to me that there may be a big

loss through delay. The Government could easily have put the length of time at one month, and not two. I will not discuss the other Amendments, but I think that on Amendment No. 124 two months is too long, and I hope the Minister will think about it again.

Mr. Stodart: I ask the Minister to reflect on Amendments 124 and 134. I take his point on Amendment No. 125. If it is not being very disloyal to my noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith), I would be inclined to think that the right hon. Gentleman has got a point, six months perhaps being slightly too long. However, I thought that the right hon. Gentleman opposed these Amendments largely on the grounds that they would not be very convenient to the board. I believe he said that it would be almost impossible for the board to operate within a month. I got the impression—perhaps one is slightly over-sensitive in these early hours—that he gave as his reason the fact that this would operate against the general convenience of the board.
I was particularly impressed by the practical arguments that my noble Friend put on the question of tenancies and—again a very practical point when it comes to replanting—the length of time that it is practicable and suitable to keep young trees. This is a point that we ought not to overlook.
I should have thought that these were two points which should be carefully balanced against the general ability of the board to carry out its inspection and other functions, and that that aspect of the matter should be carefully balanced against not only the convenience of the applicant but also these severely practical points of silviculture.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 66, in page 52, line 32, to leave out 'section' and to insert 'subsection'.
This is to correct a drafting error. The reference should be to subsection (4), and this Amendment achieves this purpose.

Amendment agreed to.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 126, in page 55, line 5, to leave out '10' and to insert '15'.

Mr. Speaker: This and Amendment No. 127, in line 7, leave out '10' and insert '15', can be taken together.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move both these Amendments—

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member may move only the first Amendment. He may speak on the second one.

Earl of Dalkeith: I raise this matter because it is customary in Scotland to have 15-year leases with breaks, and I do not know why the Government should seek to disrupt this practice which tenant farmers find to their advantage and which most of them would like to continue. I should like to know why the Minister should suddenly start talking about 10 years as being the limit and, in view of the normal custom in Scotland, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will look favourably upon this Amendment.

Mr. Ross: One of the first things which I noticed about this Amendment was that it applied something different to Scotland from what obtained in England and Wales, and it would seem that the convenience of the persons concerned would be reached in different ways.
In the case of Amendment No. 126, it would permit, in Scotland only, the granting of a lease of up to 15 years; and Amendment No. 127 would permit the assignation of a lease with up to 15 years to run, both without the consent of a rural development board.
I have already said that I have no plans at present for setting up a rural development board in Scotland, but if a Board should be established, I do not think that it should have any less powers than a board in England or Wales. In terms of subsection (3) of Clause 47, a rural development board may refuse consent to a transfer of land only if the board is of the opinion that the land could be used for the purpose of improving farm structure, or for co-ordinating farming and forestry, or for complementary uses, or where a transfer would result in the creation of an uncommercial unit.
The noble Earl says that his Amendment is in the interests of good manage-

ment. It may well be that the Board if established, would agree to allow a lease for 15 years or, in the case of Amendment No. 127, the assignment of an unexpired portion. In considering the maximum period of lease which should be entered into without the board's consent, it is necessary to find a point of balance between being too restrictive by requiring consent for short leases, and affording too much scope for evasion of the provisions of this Clause by allowing long leases without consent.
I think that we have struck a balance, and I can assure the noble Earl that there are a great many leases with fewer than 15 years to run. We think that 10 years is fair to Scotland and, bearing in mind that this is not necessarily the limit, it might well be that consent would be granted for the longer period. However, we have fixed on the figure of 10 years as striking a reasonable balance for both countries, and I hope that he will agree that he should start the New Year well by withdrawing his Amendments.

Earl of Dalkeith: The Secretary of State says he does not want to get out of step with England, but it is customary in Scotland to have 15-year leases. On the other hand, it has rarely been customary in England and there is this definite distinction between the two sides of the Border. If we change to the customary 15 years' lease, it will be unnecessary then to go through all the time wasting rigmarole of writing in order to get permission.

Mr. Stodart: One hears many surprising things in the House, but never anything so surprising as to hear one who used to be referred to as the hon. Member for Kilmarnock, now the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Scotland, saying that he did not want to get out of step with England. If he did not say those words, he certainly gave the firm impression that that would be a most unwise thing to do. If anyone had dared to suggest such a thing when he was the hon. Member for Kilmarnock I do not know how long the House would have been kept sitting by way of retribution from him. Things change.
I would not say that the 15-year lease is by any means a cast-iron feature of the Scottish land system, but it is certainly a fairly well-established and fairly


popular feature. Therefore, I hope piously that the right hon. Gentleman will not be influenced by having to keep in step with England but will, if necessary, bring England along with him.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) must not misquote me. What I am concerned about is the power of the rural development board, being pure Tartan and Scottish and the rest, in Scotland. I do not regard the inclusion of the figure "ten" as automatically ruling out anybody who seeks 15 years. But we are dealing with problem areas with special needs, and it would be wrong to go out of our way unnecessarily to lock up land in respect of which the kind of development of which I spoke might be essential.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 48.—(CONTROL OF SALE OF CERTAIN LAND: EXCEPTIONS AND SUPPLEMENTAL PROVISIONS.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 67, in page 56, line 7, to leave out from 'wife' to the end of the line and insert
'any lineal descendant or ancestor of his, and his brother and sister and any child of a brother or sister'.
In Committee, I gave hon. Members an assurance that I would consider whether we could widen the definition of "family" without going so wide that the board's control over the transfer of land in its area would be seriously weakened. I have carefully considered the matter and come to the conclusion that we could go further, and the Amendment is designed to bring in nephews and nieces. I think that that will meet the wishes of hon. Members opposite who raised the matter in Committee.

Mr. Stodart: It does not go quite as far as my suggestion, which was to include many of the names in the Succession (Scotland) Act. But I was probably being a little greedy then, and I therefore merely thank the Parliamentary Secretary for including the nephews and nieces.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 68, in page 56, line 13, at the end to insert

'or, if the order establishing the Board so provides, before the expiry of such period not exceeding three months from the date on which it is established as may be specified in the order'.
The Amendment will enable the Ministers to delay for a period of up to three months after the establishment of a board the operation of the control provisions affecting transfers of land. It may be thought desirable to allow an interval between the establishment of a board and the coming into effect of its control powers. The delay will give the board and its staff an opportunity of settling in to their duties and to decide upon the procedures to be adopted so that they can be ready to deal with applications for consent to sales of land as soon as the powers operate. I think that that is a reasonable provision and I hope that it will meet the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

6.45 a.m.

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 69, in page 56, line 28, to leave out 'twelve' and to insert 'six'.
This subsection enables a board to acquire by compulsory purchase any land which has been transferred without the board's consent. As it stands, a notice to treat must be served within 12 years of the transfer.
As I said in Committee, I have given the matter considerable thought, and I have come to the conclusion that six years would be long enough to achieve our purpose of providing an effective deterrent. I therefore ask the House to accept the Amendment, which was requested.

Mr. Stodart: The hon. Gentleman credited me in Committee with having moved this Amendment originally in the very first discussions. I have great pleasure in accepting it.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 49.—(SCHEMES FOR CO-ORDINATED AMALGAMATIONS AND RESHAPING OF AGRICULTURAL UNITS.)

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 128, in page 57, line 8, after 'may' to insert:
'following consultation with all other parties directly concerned'.


This straightforward Amendment is designed to facilitate the task of the rural development hoards so that they may operate in an area where they have good will and co-operation. I think that without these words they will run the risk of rubbing everybody up the wrong way. It would be very greatly to their benefit to have these words inserted.
I hope very much that the hon. Gentleman will give serious consideration to the point. Unless he accepts the words, the boards will find themselves being accused of riding roughshod over everybody, and I am sure that he would be the last person to wish them to put themselves in a position of being accused of that.

Mr. Hoy: I thought that it would be the purpose of the Amendment to ensure that a board consults all interested parties before it makes a scheme under the Clause. I can tell the noble Lord that it is quite unnecessary because the board already has this duty imposed upon it under the terms of subsection (6). This clearly stipulates that
The Board shall endeavour to arrive at proposals for a scheme which all concerned will be willing to implement".
Obviously, it cannot decide what kind of scheme the interested parties would be willing to implement unless it consults them. Some people, of course, may not he willing to enter into consultations, or the board may not know of their interest. To provide adequate safeguards for this situation, there is the procedure in subsection (2) for publishing a scheme and inviting submissions on it, to give them their opportunity to comment. If there are adverse submissions the Minister can order a public inquiry or the board can draw up a new scheme. Only if the Minister has given his blessing in principle can the board go ahead with the scheme, and it can then be implemented only if there are binding legal agreements covering all but a small proportion of the land.
This procedure offers the fullest opportunities for interested parties not merely to express their views but to have them put into action.
I hope that, with that very satisfactory explanation, the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 50.—(CONTROL OF AFFORESTATION.)

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 129, in page 58, line 44, to leave out from 'time' to 'has' in line 45 and to insert:
'since the first day of September 1939'.
This is a rather more substantial Amendment. In this part of the Bill, the Government have a good opportunity to advance the whole concept of integrated land use. I am sorry to see that, in many aspects of this part, there is a slightly anti-forestry flavour which is not conducive to securing the sort of integration we should all like to see.
Throughout the country, there are large areas of the scrubby type of land which was once woodland and was felled during the war. Much of this land has had fences knocked down, has been grazed by marauding cattle and has ceased to be classified as woodland for several years. Nevertheless, these areas are of little use to man or beast and surely it is just this type of land that we should be concentrating upon in our forestry replanting efforts. We should be doing our utmost to encourage individuals who own such land to plant it.
These areas are small, scattered, very often uneconomic units in which the Forestry Commission would not be interested. They are often found on owner-occupied farms and every encouragement should be given to the farmers or landowners to plant them up again. Any kind of restriction which results in their having to make special application for licences will discourage rather than encourage them. There is a strong case for the Amendment, which would allow for all wartime fellings which can be made good to be so.

Mr. John Mackie: I am disappointed that the hon. Member thinks that this part of the Bill has an anti-forestry flavour. I assure him that that is not so. He considers that the 10-year period specified is too short and his Amendment would extend exemption to any land which had been under trees at any time since 1st September, 1939. But the force of the argument based on wartime fellings has been steadily declining. Private foresters who wished to do so have had ample time and generous


Government assistance to make good wartime fellings, and to write into the Act the date suggested would take us back nearly 30 years.
On my way here there is a repair shop with a notice saying, "War damage a speciality". That is going back far enough. As time has gone by, the case for such a fixed date has become more and more irrelevant. We do not consider it reasonable to lay down a longer period than 10 years, and I ask the House not to accept the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 70, in page 59, line 1, to leave out "ten" and to insert "fifty".
Perhaps it might be convenient to discuss at the same time the two following Amendments standing in my name: No. 71, in page 59, line 2, leave out "ten" and insert "fifty", and in page 59, line 4, at end insert:
provided that if any person so elects and gives notice to the Board accordingly the foregoing provisions of this paragraph shall have effect in relation to that person and to the land in his ownership as if for the words 'ten acres' and 'twelve months' respectively there were substituted the words 'one hundred acres' and 'ten years' ".

Mr. Speaker: That is agreeable.

Earl of Dalkeith: This provision emphasises what I have said about this part of the Bill having an anti-forestry flavour, because this very restrictive subsection puts a limit on the acreage which can be planted without having to seek a licence from the board. It seems a ridiculously small area when, as the hon. Gentleman knows, hill farms in Scotland commonly extend to 5,000 or 8,000 acres. In such circumstances a 10-acre shelter belt is obviously nonsense. All those who have studied the problem of land use know quite well that many hill sheep farms could carry trees on possibly 10 to 15 per cent. of their surface at no loss and possibly at benefit to agricultural production. My Amendment seeks to remedy this unnecessarily restrictive subsection.
I thought it only fair to give the hon. Gentleman a little choice and Amendment 130 would provide as an alternative that, without applying for a licence, someone could plant 100 acres with trees over ten years and not just 10 in any one

year. It would enable him to plant 30 acres one year and 20 acres another year according to the lie of the land and according to how it was most economical to fence the ground or to plough it in preparation for planting and so on. The planting of only 10 acres a year could easily become an uneconomic proposition.
I know that the Parliamentary Secretary will say that if someone wants to plant a bigger area there is nothing to stop him from applying for a licence, but is it necessary all the time in whichever direction one turns these days to have to be applying for a licence? Where shall we stop? One day the Minister will be trying to insist on what sort of wallpaper should be used in one's house. There must be some limit to the encroachment by the State on the freedom of the individual.
I should have thought that my suggestion was perfectly fair and reasonable. I know that this provision has been included in the Bill to try to prevent the conversion of good farming land to forestry user to try to exercise some degree of control. There can be no other justification for having such a narrow limit as 10 acres a year.
One matter which requires clarification concerns the phrase "ownership of any one person". If a company owned 10 farms and wanted to plant shelter belts on each farm, would it be limited to planting one acre on each farm? That would be quite crazy, but that is the only way in which I can construe this provision.
I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will study the Amendment with considerable seriousness, bearing in mind the economic aspects of planting trees.

7.0 a.m.

Mr. Hawkins: I support this proposal. It is a practicable proposition. It is quite ridiciulous to have to go back year after year for permission to plant 10 acres of land. If the Government will not accept the amendment, will they accept that the owner of property who wants to do a programme of planting can ask the development board for the whole programme to be approved, so that a programme of, say 100 acres over 10 years could be approved in the first instance? That would enable him to


take on staff for the planting, to buy wire netting in quantity, and would enable the cutting back of paper work and pre vent clogging up the board's administration.
The limit of 10 acres is far too small. I do not know the hill land, but at present on very poor breckland, I am planning many shelter belts and they need planting to follow one another with the estate staff. It would be far better if the whole programme could be approved at the beginning, even if the raising of the acreage limit is not accepted. Even on the small estates we have in Norfolk, 10 acres is very little and in Norfolk we are planting 25 acres of shelter belt on 1,000 acres and we hope to do 12 or 15 in the first year.
I hope that the Minister can provide practical help. There is already enough form-filling by officials, whose only aim seems to be to say, "No" three times before they say, "Yes". Some of this sort of thinking seems to have crept into the Minister's thinking last evening and today.

Mr. Stodart: I support these Amendments, and particularly No. 130. This is rather a test case so far as the Joint Parliamentary Secretary is concerned. He has said that there is no element of anti-forestry and he is anxious to put this formally on the record. There is no question but that the production of timber in Britain is one of the most vital contributions to the balance of payments. We have to have more woodland. This restriction to 10 acres will not apply to the Forestry Commission, but only to the private forester in the development area. We are not likely to be affected by rural development boards because we have been told that the Secretary of State does not propose to set them up in Scotland, but to have a rigid figure year by year does not fit in with the way one may want to do one's work.
My noble Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has referred to various factors which govern planting. I often found myself planting three acres one year and seven or eight the next, and possibly one or two the year after. Alai of this depends upon so many woodland estates and how one's farming activities are arranged. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will agree that we

have to work for an integration of farming and forestry. This is essential, and I can well envisage, particularly on smaller estates, the farm workers playing a big part in the planting of trees. If one has a very late spring on the farm it may be that one will not be able to plant one's ten acres in one year and one would do seven or eight and 12 or 13 acres the following year.
In this particular sphere we must have flexibility, if I may remind the hon. Gentleman of the word which was rammed down our throats by his right hon. Friend—I will not say ad nauseam because he did it very nicely. From the first day of Committee the point was made several times—sometimes defensively, sometimes aggressively, but at every sitting of the Committee—that there was a need for flexibility. I throw the word back to the hon. Gentleman and I hope that he will be as realistic on this Amendment as he failed to be on the one relating to the farm improvement scheme. If he is we might forgive him for his former lapse.

Mr. John Mackie: Hon. Gentlemen opposite gave me the impression that this applies to all forestry. But it is applicable to development areas, and I do not think that Norfolk, for instance, is likely to be made such an area. This comment applies also to the noble Lord. This relates to a development area and the amount of trees which can be planted without a licence.
There is no reason why planning ahead should not be done in co-operation with the Board. The noble Lord referred to the fact that a 10-acre shelter belt was a nonsense. I do not think so. It is 700 yards by 70 and that is a rather big shelter belt. I doubt whether he will find many better.

Earl of Dalkeith: I said that a 10-acre shelter belt would be a nonsense if there is a company owning 10 farms and it is only allowed, in one ownership, to plant 10 acres a year.

Mr. Mackie: I am sorry if I misunderstood. The point was made that as a farmer I would probably be thinking of protecting farm land, but what I want to protect are the development board's plans for an area, and to ensure that tree planting does not conflict with the general development programme for the area. There must be a fairly low limit


imposed on an individual's unlicensed planting. If the limit were put at 50 acres the amount of unlicensed planting would soon build up over the years and compromise the board's plans.
We have given careful consideration to the matter but we still feel that, although we would not wish a board to be concerned with very small plantings, it is necessary that the board should have the opportunity of examining proposals involving the planting of more than 10 acres. It can be argued that 10 acres per year over 10 years is 100 acres, and this is arithmetically correct.
We have fixed a limit of 10 acres a year so as to ensure that unlicensed planting is not on such a scale that it might interfere with a board's general development programme. This is the main argument on unlicensed planting. An arrangement can be made with the board about future planting. To allow an area of 100 acres to be planted in one go, without giving the board the opportunity to examine the project, might compromise plans seriously.
The purpose of this is to safeguard the board's plans. It deals with unlicensed planting, and there is no reason why permission should not be given for bigger plantings so long as they do not conflict with the board's plans for a particular area. I think that hon. Members will see why I must ask the House to reject this Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: Could the hon. Gentleman give any example to show how the planting of 11 acres in the middle of a hill farm is likely to conflict with the hoard's plans? That is where the hon. Gentleman seems to be getting away from reality. If we were given a reasonable explanation, we might be able to understand his obstinacy in refusing to accept a perfectly reasonable Amendment.

Mr. Mackie: The hon. Gentleman has taken one acre above what is considered to be the reasonable figure. The figure could be 20 or 30 acres. We did not want the board to bother itself with very small plantings, and we fixed on 10 acres as a reasonable figure. Anything above that could destroy any plans which the board might have in certain areas.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 72, in page 59, line 15, at the end to insert:
(h) if the order establishing the Board so provides, to planting carried out during such period not exceeding three months from the date on which it is established as may be specified in the order.
The purpose of the Amendment is to allow the Ministers, when setting up a board, to delay by a period of up to three months the operation of the control provisions relating to the planting of trees. This is similar to that proposed by my hon. Friend on Clause 48 which we have already discussed. It may be desirable to allow an interval between the establishment of a board and the coming into effect of its licensing powers, to give it time to work out its policy and procedures before the powers have to be exercised. This is a reasonable Amendment and I hope that the House will accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 139, in page 59, line 17, to leave out from "direct" to end of line 21 and insert:
(4)(a) The Board shall exercise their powers under this section as a means of meeting the problems and needs described in section 43 of this Act in relation to their area and in accordance with such exercise may, on any application for a licence under this section refuse it or grant it either with or without conditions.
 (b) In any case in which the Board refuse an application for a licence or grant it subject to conditions they shall pay to the person making the application compensation equal to the loss shown by the applicant to have been incurred by him in consequence of such refusal or the additional expenditure incurred by him in complying with such conditions, as the case may be:
Provided that any claim for compensation under this subsection shall be made to the Board within three years of the date of the refusal of the application or of the grant of the application subject to conditions, as the case may be.
 (c) Any question arising between the Board and any person as to the amount of compensation payable under this subsection shall be determined by the Lands Tribunal.

Mr. Speaker: We shall discuss, at the same time, Amendment No. 131, in page 59, line 18, after "conditions", insert:
provided that neither the refusal nor the conditions are expected to involve the applicant in financial loss or in greater financial expenditure than would have been the case if the original application accorded with the rules of sound woodland management as recognised in dedicated or approved Woodland schemes".

Earl of Dalkeith: This is by far the most important Amendment of the group which I have tabled. Its purpose is to rectify a very important omission from the Bill which I feel must have occurred by accident. I hope, therefore, that it will be acceptable to the Government, not only because it is to rectify an omission but because it is eminently sensible and fair and it will give the Government an opportunity to expunge superfluous words, a matter to which the Minister referred a short time ago. By the time that the Amendment has been made, most of subsection (4) will then become superfluous. Not only do we think these words superfluous, but this is one of the worst drafted pieces of legislation that I have ever seen.
When the Minister tries to maintain that this is not anti-forestry, I can only say that it is certainly not pro-forestry. It is quite clear that it could not have been written by anybody who had any knowledge of forestry. It refers to "kinds of trees", whereas one always speaks of species of trees. There are all kinds of points in the Clause which are complete nonsense. The purpose of the Amendment is to ensure that some form of compensation is paid to a potential planter of trees should the board either give a point-blank refusal to grant a licence or impose conditions, either of which could result in the applicant sustaining a financial loss.
7.15 a.m.
Here are two examples. A man buy a hill farm with a view to planting trees on it. Fie pays a higher price for the farm for the planting of trees than he would pay if he were intending to farm it with sheep. He then applies to the rural development board for a licence to plant trees, but he is refused. He is left with the farm and is unable to sell it except for its sheep rearing value, which may be considerably lower than its forestry value. No provision is made for compensating that man for the consequences of an arbitrary decision of the board.
An applicant may be compelled to obey certain conditions laid down arbitrarily by the board. He is forced to plant the wrong type of trees for the site. Perhaps he is made to plant oak

trees on a hill site because they would look more beautiful. Not only are these trees more expensive to start with, but they require more weeding and so on, and the chances are that they may get frost-bitten and die in the first year, in the second year, or perhaps in the third year.
This is why I have written into the Amendment that there should be a three-year period within which an applicant can put in his claim for compensation. The trees might survive the first two years, but die in the third. There is no provision for any kind of compensation for loss sustained, and it is only fair that there should be.
I put down Amendment No. 131 because I was not sure whether the Money Resolution would allow for compensation to be paid in cases of this kind. It seemed to me that the only reasonable alternative was that the board should be limited in the conditions which it could impose in such a way that it did not inflict lose upon an applicant.
This is a most important Amendment for the sake of fairness, and I feel sure that the omission of proper provision from the Bill was the result of accident in the drafting. I hope that the Minister will now put the matter right.

Mr. Godber: I support the Amendment. If the Government are not happy with the wording, they can accept the principle and put in their own form of words to meet the point. My hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has made out a powerful case. As a matter of equity, anyone who is called upon to plant a particular type of tree which then fails should not be called upon to bear the loss himself. That would be quite unjust. The gap in the Bill to which my hon. Friend has drawn attention must be filled, and I hope that the Government will accept his proposal.

Mr. John Mackie: The noble Lord the Member for Edinburgh, North (Earl of Dalkeith) has returned to his anti-forestry point on the basis that if we are not in favour of it, we must be against it. He also suggested that because some of the words are not quite what he is accustomed to in Scotland, those who drafted them probably did not


know much about forestry. Might it not be that some expressions in Scotland are different from those used in England? I would not know for sure, but it may be so.
The noble Lord pointed out that if someone bought a farm in a development area with a view to planting it and thereby increasing its value, that person would suffer financial loss if he did not get permission to plant. But under the provisions of Clause 47, nobody can buy land in a development area without the board's permission. Before being given permission, a person would presumably find out whether the land could be planted or not. There is, therefore, no danger of anybody buying land and not knowing the board's plans for the land.
The purpose of giving a board licensing control over private afforestation is to give the board the chance of steering private decisions on the use of land in its area so as to accord with the board's development programme, and of preventing irreversible changes in parts of the area from taking place without its agreement. Boards will be concerned with the co-ordinated development of forestry and agriculture in their areas, while making the most of natural amenities and assisting public services.
When granting a licence to plant trees, a board may impose conditions, of which particular examples are specified in subsection (4). These would ensure that amenity interests can be considered, that land planted with a short-term crop is restored to agricultural use within a reasonable time, that planting is carried out within a specified period and that access to other land is not blocked by the new planting.
Although the Government consider that there is no need to control afforestation generally by legislation, in a board's area forestry will almost certainly be a major rural land use which cannot be ignored if the boards are to carry out their tasks effectively.
Amendment No. 131 seeks to prevent a board from refusing a licence or from attaching conditions to a licence if such action would result in an expected financial loss to the applicant or greater financial outlay than otherwise. Boards must, however, be guided by the needs

of their areas and applications must be considered in the light of their general development programmes.
If a planting proposal fits in with the general scheme, a licence will, of course, be granted. If, however, a proposal would conflict with its programme, the board must be free to refuse a licence or, if appropriate, issue a licence attaching one or more of the conditions specified in the Bill. This will ensure that the proposed planting is in line with its general aims. To make licensing subject to the considerations that the Amendment suggests would nullify the whole procedure and frustrate the board's overall development programme.
In many cases, no doubt, licences will be issued free from conditions apart from the five-year time limit. The boards are, after all, to be charged primarily with development functions. They will have to bear commercial considerations in mind when considering whether to attach conditions to a planting licence in the interests of amenity or access. But, as with planning controls, if they do impose such a condition for the good of the area as a whole, they should not have to pay for it. They will have to keep within their functions and the conditions will have to be reasonable. If any applicant thinks that a condition is unreasonable, his recourse will be to appeal to the Minister.
Turning now to compensation for refusal of a licence, I have just made a comparison with the planning legislation, in which also the use of land is controlled in the interests of the community. Under the Town and Country Planning Act, 1962, compensation is paid only in cases of refusal of permission for new development when a claim was registered in 1948. It is true that if permission is refused to develop land which has no other beneficial use, the local authority can be required to buy the land; but in the Bill we have exempted from the licensing control any land which is not capable of another beneficial use. Paragraph (f) of subsection (2) gives this exemption. There therefore seems to be no reason why we should arrange for the board to pay compensation under the Clause.
In view of all these points, I must ask the House to reject the two Amendments.

Earl of Dalkeith: Even allowing for the late less of the hour, that was a monstrous reply. It is scandalous that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary should answer the debate in such a manner. After all, he is setting up a board which will have power to march on people's land and dictate what they should or should lot grow. A great deal of additional expense will be involved to landowners, yet the hon. Gentleman made it clear that not a penny compensation will be paid. If he went to an allotment holder and said "You will not grow cabbages next year; you will grow carrots" and the carrots died, the allotment holder would have him by the throat. The trouble is that "landowner" is a dirty word to hon. Gentlemen opposite. I trust that the hon. Gentleman will consider the matter again.

Mr. Godber: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman has exhausted his right to speak.

Mr. Godber: I wished to seek the leave of the House merely to point out that I, too, was distressed at the Joint Parliamentary Secretary's reply. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman has been awake for too long and has been unable to give adequate thought to the serious arguments adduced by my hon. and noble Friend. I hope that when the Measure appears before another place—remembering that there, at a more favourable hour, particular note is taken of forestry matters—a more favourable reply will be forthcoming.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move, Amendment No. 74, in page 59, line 27, to leave out 'at' and to insert 'by'.
This is a drafting Amendment, designed to clarify a point raised in Standing Committee by the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson). The Amendment makes it clear that when a board issues a licence for a short-term crop of trees, it may require the planter to both harvest his crop and to have the land cleared and made suitable for agricultural purposes by the end of the period specified in the licence.

Amendment agreed to.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move, Amendment No. 132, in page 59, to leave out lines 33 to 35 and to insert:
(d) requiring the planting and any new fencing to be carried out in such a manner and with sufficient gates as to allow access to adjacent land by existing customarily used routes'.
This is really a drafting Amendment, because it seeks to achieve what I believe the Minister has in mind but what is not being achieved by the Clause as drafted. It is, therefore, a tidying-up operation. The object of this part of the Bill is to prevent an access to adjoining land from becoming blocked. When referring to tree planting, the thing that normally prevents access is the fencing. I have endeavoured to reword the subsection to mean what it says, although it imposes a condition which I would have preferred to have seen applied to the Forestry Commission, since a private forester is seldom guilty of planting trees in such a way that access to adjoining land is blocked.
The Amendment is necessary in view of the additional cost that might be involved if the board stated that gaps should be left at frequent intervals. Such a request could greatly increase the amount of fencing required. My wording makes the position clearer and, I believe, more adequately states what the Minister has in mind.

7.30 a.m.

Mr. John Mackie: I appreciate the noble Lord's point. I remember considerable argument in Aberdeenshire and the north-east of Scotland on this subject; and that the Forestry Commission was blamed for complete blocks of forestry being fenced in with no gates that could be left open, and virtually no gaps left to allow sheep or cattle to get to the higher ground that was not planted, or even access to the grazing areas. In such circumstances, gates and other means of access would have been the right thing to provide. I would not argue with the noble Lord one way or the other whether or not private planters have more sense, but I would imagine that forestry planters now have more sense, and one would hope that the development board would see to this aspect.
I am sure that the noble Lord would agree that a big gap is much better than a gate, which cannot be much more than


10 feet or 12 feet wide—or a double gate might be 15 feet to 18 feet. A wider gap between planting is much better. I think that as new areas are planted this sort of access will be left, and that gates will not be provided.
Having said that, I hope that the noble Lord will agree to withdraw his Amendment.

Earl of Dalkeith: If the Board imposed such a condition and if, as a result of there being a big gap and it was in hill land, the inevitable happened—the wood blew down—would the board accept liability and pay compensation? The Government ask that the board should have power to insist on people doing that. Does the hon. Gentleman think it right that the board, whose members may not be foresters, should have power to insist on people planting trees and do things that the normal forester would not in his own better judgment wish to do?
The board is being given these powers to interfere with the normal conduct of business—and the growing of trees, like farming, is a business. The hon. Gentleman would not like people marching in on him and telling him to grow crops different from those of his own choice on his land. This sort of interference is quite unwarranted, and the Parliamentary Secretary should think about these matters rather more seriously.
I hope that these points will be considered in that light in the further stages of the Bill.

Mr. Monro: I support this Amendment because my noble Friend knows more about forestry than anyone else here. It seems singularly inept of the Government to turn down all these constructive Amendments without any great thought. We have a vaguely worded Clause which talks of gaps but with no indication of their width, whereas my noble Friend's Amendment is precise in detail and so much better for the purposes of the Clause. The Minister should offer to take this Amendment back and see that it is accepted in another place, or rewrite the Clause in terms acceptable to the House.

Mr. Prior: It looks to me as though the draftsmen must have got about as bored with the Bill by the time they

reached this Clause as we are at this moment. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that the right way to go about things would be to take this Clause away, get an expert on forestry, such as my noble Friend, to look at it, and then have it rewritten. All the time we are wanting to do more for forestry, but the Government are producing a very stupid subsection altogether.
Surely we ought to have an undertaking from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will look at this again. I do not know much about forestry in Scotland but I know something about the way trees blown down in gales. We had a tremendously serious blow in Scotland a few years ago which did an immense amount of damage. Here we have an instruction to the board which will lead to exactly the same thing again.

Mr. John Mackie: I think that subsection (4,d), which reads:
requiring the planting to be carried out with such gaps as will prevent the planting from blocking access to some other land",
seeks to do what the noble Lord wants to be done, but in a different way. We are not rigid about these things. I am perfectly prepared to see whether this provision can be better worded to ensure that gaps are not too big and might create a blow. As we know, noble Lords in another place who are interested in forestry helped to word the provision. As I say, the provision is in the Bill simply to achieve what the noble Lord desires.

Earl of Dalkeith: With that assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 133, in page 59, line 38, at the end to insert:
'except to a person to whom the land to which the licence relates, or in the interests of the licence holder in that land, is conveyed or assigned'.
The purpose of this Amendment is partly to seek clarification. I should have thought that the object of this subsection was to exercise some measure of control over the land rather than over the individual, the licensee. I should like to know what happens when


the licensee dies. Is it the purpose of this Bill to have control exercised over the land?

Mr. John Mackie: The general aim of the Amendment can be summed up in the phrase that "the licence should run with the land", as in the case of tree-felling licences, based on the view that if the board is prepared to give a licence to one individual, it should not retract it if he transfers his interest in the land to another, or, as the noble Lord said, if he dies. We wish to see the board keeping a reasonably flexible programme, and modifying it in the light of changing circumstances. When land for which a planting licence has been issued has not been planted—and we must remember that the licence may have been issued five years previously—it is reasonable for the board to have an opportunity to have another look at the matter in the light of developments since the licence was issued in that particular part of its area. If forestry remains a sound use of the land in question and is still in accordance with the board's general development programme, then, of course, a new planting licence will be issued.
I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's arguments, especially where the licence has only recently been issued, and if he will withdraw the Amendment I will give further consideration to his proposal to see if we can meet him on this point.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 135, in page 60, line 2, to leave out 'five' and to insert 'ten'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher): This Amendment can conveniently be discussed with Amendment No. 138, in page 61, line 14, leave out 'five' and insert 'ten'.

Earl of Dalkeith: I should like to know how the Government arrive at the figure of five rather than 10. I should have thought that there would be some argument in favour of 10 years. The reason I say that is that when a licence is given for planting trees, according to the present wording, it must be completed

within five years. For one reason or another there may be a number of very good reasons why it cannot be completed economically within a five year period.
It may be that we have the sort of Government we are enjoying today, when we have a credit squeeze, and when it may not be very easy to raise the necessary capital to carry out the forestry programme for which a person sought his licence. There is a variety of circumstances which could arise which might prevent one from carrying out one's programme, and I would like to know what would happen if the licensee did not comply with this particular rule. Perhaps the Minister could tell us that.

Mr. John Mackie: The purpose of this Amendment is to extend the period for which a licence to plant trees, issued by a board, may be made valid without explanation. There is nothing in the Bill to stop a board from making the time limit 10 years, or two, in a specific case, so long as the reasons are given. We are dealing here with the normal case, and we consider it reasonable to expect a licensee to carry out planting within a fairly short period of time after the granting of a licence. We assume that he would not have applied for a licence until he was ready to plant, or had at least planned his programme of planting.
Five years seems to be a reasonable period for the normal case, but if the applicant needs longer than five years, he can explain his need to the board and the board may well decide to allow him longer. The board would have no hesitation in allowing a longer period, or renewing a licence where no new factors had arisen during the original period allowed for planting. I think that the noble Earl will agree that the board, having set a time limit need not give reasons for doing so.
I am presuming, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that I may refer to Amendment No. 138 and, if so, I would say that the licences dealt with in subsection (12) will be issued in cases where the board has not found it possible to reach a decision within two months of the application, and the landowner invokes the procedure provided for securing a definite ruling within a fortnight.

Earl of Dalkeith: What happens if the licensee does not comply with this particular condition? Will he be imprisoned, or fined, or what will happen?

Mr. Mackie: I have said that five years is considered to be a very reasonable period, but if the applicant does need more than five years, then he can explain his needs to the board which may well allow a longer period. If I may say so, the noble Earl seems to have a persecution mania. He should snap out of it and not believe, as one would suspect he believes, that the board will exist just for the purpose of persecuting landlords and the like.

Earl of Dalkeith: Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House the penalty if the licensee does not comply with the board's instructions?

Mr. Mackie: There is a Clause on penalties, but this is nothing to do with the Amendment.

Amendment negatived.

7.45 a.m.

Earl of Dalkeith: I beg to move Amendment No. 136, in page 60, line 26, to leave out "two hundred" and insert "fifty".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It might be for the convenience of the House to consider with it Amendment No. 137, in page 60, line 34, to leave out "ten" and insert "two".

Earl of Dalkeith: It seems to me that the Minister has decided on a very stiff penalty, bearing in mind that he is interfering with the normal conduct of people's business. I do not know why the Government should choose to threaten anybody in this way. They might go to the Rootes Group and say, "You must make red cars in future, and if you do not obey our orders we shall fine you."
I believe that this is all part of the general scheme of unwarranted, bureaucratic interference into people's everyday life. To produce fines of any kind is monstrous, but to produce fines as stiff as these is doubly monstrous. This matter should be reviewed if the Government hope to secure co-operation from the average citizen, who is willing to co-operate. Nobody is more willing than I am to co-

operate with schemes of every sort, but this sort of thing will antagonise ordinary people. It upsets people and is irritating. I hope that the Minister will look at it again.

Mr. John Mackie: Although the right hon. Member for Grantham (Mr. Godber) said that many of his hon. Friends were not in favour of rural development boards, and he gave them only "qualified support" it is a part of the Bill that boards are to be set up. If they are set up and given certain powers to carry out certain things, and some of their conditions are breached, there must be penalties.
The noble Lord again returns to his point that this is something created to encroach on the liberty of the individual. That is not the point. There must be some penalties for breaches.
The Amendments are designed to reduce from £200 to £50 the maximum fine that can be imposed for a contravention of subsection (1) of this Clause or of any condition of a tree-planting licence, and to reduce from £10 to £2 the maximum fine which may be imposed for each day on which non-compliance with a court order continues. The sum of £200 is the maximum fine that can be imposed for the initial contravention of subsection (1). Similarly, £10 is the maximum fine for continued non-compliance. The noble Lord suggests that these penalties look severe, but they are intended as a deterrent, for once land is planted without permission almost as much trouble will accrue for the board in getting the planter to reinstate it as for the planter himself. Once land is planted with trees there could be a lot of trouble in getting it cleared again.
Although the initial penalty for planting without a licence is higher than that for non-compliance with the town and country planning legislation, the continuing penalty is less. Taken together, the penalties are reasonable in comparison with penalties under the planning legislation.
If we are to have a board with powers we must have these penalties, and the penalties here are reasonable to create a proper deterrent. I ask the House to reject the Amendments.

Amendment negatived.

Clause 53.—(POWERS OF ENTRY AND OF OBTAINING INFORMATION.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 75, in page 63, line 11, at the end to insert:
(2) A person leaving any land which he has entered by virtue of the foregoing subsection shall, if the land is unoccupied or the occupier is temporarily absent, leave it as effectively secured against trespassers as he found it.
As my hon. Friend the other Joint Parliamentary Secretary said in Standing Committee, I am sure that the board's officers when visiting land unattended will exercise every care and will leave the land as effectively secured as they found it on entering. However, the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) asked for this provision to be included in the Bill. I am happy to put forward this Amendment, which, I hope, will satisfy him. I am sure that he is very delighted.

Mr. Stodart: I am much obliged. We have "pinched" this, the right hon. Gentleman may remember, from the High, land Development Act.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 59.—(GRANTS FOR PURPOSES CONNECTED WITH CO-OPERATIVE ACTIVITIES.)

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 76, in page 68, line 33, at the end to insert:
'and in particular shall provide that grants are not made to any person in such a way as to provide unfair competition with those already carrying on similar trading activities and who are members of the established trade'.
The Clause deals with grants for purposes connected with co-operative activities. These are activities which, I believe, we all wish to foster. All that we are concerned about is that grants should not be given for the purpose of co-operative activities which will enable them to provide, because they are grant-aided, unfair competition with other people already established in the trade and carrying on similar trading activities.
I would not pretend that the wording of the Amendment is necessarily right, but I hope that the Government will appreciate our sentiments. For an analogy one can go to the grants which are given to the machinery syndicates under the Agriculture (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act. Once they have been grant-aided,

machinery syndicates are not permitted to dry grain commercially for other people because this would bring them into direct competition with other commercial grain driers, and the fact that the machinery syndicate had had Government grant to assist it in its capital development would put it in a favourable position.
This is the reason for the Amendment, and I hope that the Government will feel able to accept it.

Mr. John Mackie: We understand the feeling behind the Amendment. Naturally, the corn merchants and foodstuffs manufacturers are very much concerned in the matter.
In paragraph 37 of the White Paper we stated that we would not grant aid processing "beyond operations of this sort that were normally associated with farming and growing. We propose to provide grant aid towards the provision of facilities for co-operative milling and mixing, and so on, because these are operations which are normally associated with farming, being carried out for the purpose of feeding stock.
In the same paragraph of the White Paper we also stated that we did not propose to provide grant aid for bodies which were merely acting as wholesalers, and we intend that the proposed Central Council, in examining proposals before making recommendations, should ensure that applicants are genuine co-operatives marketing produce on behalf of, and for the benefit of, their members, who must be subject to appropriate loyalty conditions. This will provide a general safeguard to the cereals trade.
As regards milling and mixing in particular, we propose, when dealing with applications from co-operatives for grant aid for these and kindred activities, that the council should apply the following four specific safeguards. First, the grant-aiding of milling and mixing facilities will be limited to the capacity appropriate to the feed requirements of the members concerned with the application. Second, the grain to be milled and mixed will have to be mainly grain grown by these members as a whole. Third, the feeding-stuffs must not be sold other than to such members. Fourth, the grant-aided facilities must not be disposed of for a stipulated period, which has not yet finally


been decided upon but will probably be five years, in default of which grant will be recovered.
We have told the N.A.C.A.M. and the C.A.F.M.N.A. about these safeguards and that it is our intention that they should be included in a working document, which is to be agreed between the council and the Ministers concerned, covering the administrative arrangements of the grant scheme. I am satisfied that this will adequately protect the interests of the established trades and, indeed, will be more effective than would the Amendment, which does not make clear what is meant by "unfair competition".
I hope that, in view of these assurances, the hon. Member will agree that the Amendment is unnecessary.

Mr. Stodart: I suspected that there were probably a couple of words at least in the Amendment through which a horse and cart could be driven. My right hon. Friend and I are satisfied with the hon. Gentleman's explanation and I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 63.—(GRANTS FOR KEEPING FARM BUSINESS RECORDS.)

Mr. Stodart: I beg to move Amendment No. 77, in page 74, line 19, to leave out "kept" and to insert "approved and certified".
This Amendment deals with the new grant, to which I have paid tribute on two occasions, for the keep of farm records. Although we did not move an Amendment in Committee on this point, it will probably save time if I merely read out what I said on that occasion:
It also appears that grants will not be payable if the occupier or one of the family keeps the records—it must be a farm accountant or someone like that who does that job. Is it really necessary, for administrative purposes, to make this restriction? Why cannot a farmer or his son complete the farm business record book and have it certified by an accountant? One of the very good things about agriculture in the last few years has been the way in which farmers have been getting much more account-minded. They are increasingly appreciating the need to keep records and to know what are the most profitable lines.
There has been a great gain to the industry as a result of this.
In his reply, the Minister did not go very far. He said:
The main thing is that records should be kept to a high standard … It is, of course, true that some members of a farmer's family know about keeping records, and find the time to do this additional work."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th November, 1966; c. 1205–9.]
That is as far as the right hon. Gentleman went. I do not see the point of this restriction, provided, of course, that the accounts are certified or approved by someone who is regarded as competent to approve them.
It is excellent for farmers or their sons to be encouraged to take a personal interest in the accounts and one cannot be as interested in the accounts if they are kept by someone else. That nobody will deny. Added to that, if the accounts are sent away, there is the time lag before they come back. One of the weaknesses about many farm accounts and farm statistics lies in the fact that they generally refer to a period which is out of date by at least a few months.
I therefore urge on the Government the wisdom of encouraging the keeping of accounts by those farmers who show an inclination to do so. There is no sort of sanction upon them to do so, but, certainly, if a grant is available only if the accounts are not kept by the farmer, then there is, naturally, absolutely no encouragement to go further along the road which has been most usefully travelled to the benefit not only of agriculture, but many people outside it.

8.0 a.m.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) has said and I endorse particularly his point about records being kept by a member of a farmer's family. Obviously, if the farmer or a member of his family can keep the accounts properly, the more encouragement he gets to do so, the better.
I wish to raise the same issue which I raised in Standing Committee—the instance where the farm or estate has a proper office, something increasingly to be found in agriculture, and where the farmer employs a trained secretary or trained accountant. It seems an unnecessary duplication and unnecessary extra expense that in order to qualify under the farm business recording scheme not


only has the farmer to employ his own secretary or accountant to keep the books in the normal course of events, but also to send them to an accountant in an approved agency. This is a matter with which Ministers did not deal in Committee and I would like to hear why this form of farm book keeping should be excluded, particularly when a secretary or accountant is employed on the farm and already trained in this type of work.

Mr. John Mackie: It will be difficult to accept the Amendment, much as we appreciate the points made by the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) and the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith). The arguments have been put sufficiently in Committee. First and foremost, the grant is directed to farmers who have yet to learn the value of farm business records as an aid to sound management decisions. This is the essential point. To be of any value the records must be kept up to date and be of a high standard. This requires a degree of skill and the regular allotment of time to record keeping which many farmers cannot spare, particularly when the farm business includes a number of different enterprises or lines of production.
Of coarse, we appreciate that there are farmers who employ people for keeping books and records. They normally do the early part of the keeping of records —keeping cheque stubs and so on. There is also the finishing-off process and the analysis of the figures, and in between there is that part of the record-keeping process which, we freely admit, could be undertaken by a farmer who has some knowledge of book keeping and who has an office and staff.
We are prepared to look into this and consider whether special arrangements would be practicable and reasonable in these exceptional circumstances. I think the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) would agree that even where farmers can do this themselves, it would be the responsibility of the record-keeping business to make regular checks and keep the last stage of the records, that is the management analysis summaries, and it is therefore important to retain "kept" in the Bill so I ask the hon. Member to withdraw his Amendment on the promise that we will look at it.

Mr. Jopling: May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he is trying to find a way in which the farmer's family can be brought in to do these duties? I have just started a scheme myself, in the last few weeks. We had some doubts about starting it. One of the great problems and pitfalls for a staff not skilled in keeping these records is the problem of the beginning and end of the year.
It is important that a farm should begin its year's business recording at the time of year best suited to that farm. For an arable farm, this time of year is much the best, when there is not much in the ground, as my hon. Friend the Member for Norfolk South-West (Mr. Hawkins) knows better than anybody in the House. For a dairy farm, summer is best and for a hill farm, the autumn, when much of that stock has been sold and there is as little as possible to carry over from one year to the next.
I understand that Ministry officials are saying that, after an application has been made, there can be no retrospective recording. When agreement is made, a farm can begin, let us say, on the 30th or 31st January. If it were very convenient for the farm and for the farming year that it should start on the 1st January, it would be much easier for staff not so skilled as a professional accountant. I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will look at this and see if he can allow a week or two of retrospective accounting which would make it much less complicated at the beginning and end of the year.

Mr. John Mackie: I will bear in mind what the hon. Member says.

Mr. Stodart: I could argue with the Parliamentary Secretary on this, but I will not. I think he is trying to be helpful. I agree that the sort of farmer I have described, who might take advantage of this, is almost certainly in the minority, but he should be encouraged. It looks as though the Minister might try to do something, so I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 64.—(DISEASES OF ANIMALS.)

Mr. Kitson: I beg to move, Amendment No. 78, in page 75, line 3, to leave out ' have power'.
The intention behind this Amendment is to try to encourage the Minister of Agriculture to tackle the problem of salmonella typhimurium. I know that this is a difficult problem and that both Parliamentary Secretaries are extremely concerned about the spread of salmonella typhimurium. I referred to the phage type 29, discovered by the Chinese in 1959, and isolated in this country in 1961. In an Adjournment debate on 28th July, 1966 I pointed out that there are no enforceable restrictions to stop a farmer who has a drug resistant salmonella in his herd from selling his animals and spreading the disease and, therefore, the resistant organisms. I said then:
There is documentary evidence that a particular salmonella has been spread by one calf dealer into nearly every county—certainly into 37 counties. Even though the technical laboratories and the public health workers know the background to this problem there are no powers to control it."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th July 1966, Vol. 732, c. 2056.]
In Hampshire, there were three human deaths as a result of an outbreak and in another case 57 people were taken to hospital. There is a difficulty, which we all recognise, of isolating this particular type of salmonella. I have no doubt that when the Joint Parliamentary Secretary replies he will say that there are thousands of different types of salmonella. But there has recently appeared in this country this salmonella typhimurium of phage type 29.
I know that it will be extremely difficult, having located this disease, to clear it up, but the "vets" feel, I am sure, rightly, that the indiscriminate use of antibiotics on calves to try to cure them creates very dangerous problems for the human beings who can also develop this type of salmonella. What happens is that a child or an old person develops this particular salmonella and a doctor uses drugs such as penicillin, chloroamphenicol, ampicillin, and sulpholamides but to no effect.
The calf dealer of whom I spoke earlier came from Essex, and the Ministry knew about him and realised the problem, but they had no powers to act. The least that the Minister can do is to accept this Amendment and make some attempt to help solve this problem and reduce a very serious human disease.

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order. Is Amendment No. 79, in page 75, line 4, after 'services' insert 'for particular purposes', and Amendment No. 80, in page 75, line 5, after 'services' insert 'and provision for a double check on these where any question of doubt arises' being discussed with this Amendment?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be convenient if those Amendments were discussed with this Amendment.

Viscount Lambton: I had not originally intended to put down the Amendment which, with your permission I will now discuss, but I believe that the need for a double check is essential. To explain why, at some slight length for the time of day, I would like to bring to the attention of the House certain examples illustrating the faults in veterinary administration which occurred in an outbreak of foot-and-mouth disease in North Northumberland last summer. I contend that this outbreak was due to a maladministration and that as a result very considerable animal suffering—

Mr. Peart: On a point of order. The noble Viscount has the Adjournment debate soon and has informed my Department of the charges made by him. I would have thought that to get involved on this Amendment in this way would be extending privileges rather far.

Viscount Lambton: I must say that I claim the right to explain fully why I put down this Amendment. The fact that I have the Adjournment debate is totally irrelevant.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I was listening to the noble Viscount. This Amendment is a narrow one and it would not be in order for him to elaborate arguments in support of it at any great length. He is entitled to refer to the outbreak in Northumberland briefly, in support of his argument, but he must confine his speech to the narrow purposes of this Amendment.

8.15 a.m.

Viscount Lambton: May I ask what you mean, Mr. Deputy Speaker, by "the narrow purposes of the Amendment "? I should like to give examples of what


occurred in practise, which illustrates the necessity for a double veterinary check.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The noble Lord must appreciate that his Amendment has not been selected by Mr. Speaker. Mr. Speaker has permitted the Amendment to be discussed with the Amendment which has no w been moved, and I hope that the noble Lord will be able to confine his remarks briefly within that limitation.

Viscount Lambton: I will certainly try to do so; but I must go beyond the limitation which the Minister wishes to impose on me. Unless you stop me, I would like to give certain examples illustrating the need for the Amendment which I have inserted. I would say with all deference that the fact that I was able to discuss this does enable me to treat every aspect of the case.

Mr. Godber: You yourself, Mr. Deputy Speaker, made the point that this particular Amendment had not been selected, but was being allowed to be discussed. I understand that Amendment No. 79 has been selected. The reference to particular purposes would largely cover what my hon. Friend is proposing to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman is not correct. Amendment No. 79 has not been selected. The only Amendment which has been selected at this point is Amendment No. 78, but Mr. Speaker has permitted Amendments Nos. 79 and 80 to be discussed with Amendment No. 78. That selection does impose limitations on the length to which the noble Lord can go.

Viscount Lambton: I will certainly try to be as brief as possible in order to meet your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I should like to give some quotations which, in my view, necessitate the need for a double check. One statement, in my view, makes it essential that there should be a check. It is one that was given to me by a farmworker, Mr. Jobson. He said that the slaughterers
…got impatient waiting up to 2 hours for the animals to be brought in and penned.
The animals were crammed into pens. If a sheep was not properly shot it got behind him and was sometimes missed. Some sheep were suffocated by the pressure and not shot, at least some did not have any bullet holes.

Slaughter started on the Thursday (28th July) and the last sheep were killed on Saturday (30th). When I went out at 10 p.m. some sheep (which were presumably slaughtered) were still active and I had to "bang them" (with an iron stake). One had to have its throat cut on the Sunday (31st).
I suggest, with all deference, that this is within the narrow limits of the discussion.
Let me give another statement which was made by two farmworkers, Mr. Johnson and Mr. Young, of Dancing Hall, Callaly, Whittingham. They said:
Slaughtering at Dancing Hall was a disgrace. One slaughterman was very young and inexperienced. The contractors' men needed supervision. They did not accept our advice, with the result that the penning of the animals caused unnecessary delay and confusion, for example, penning where the gate opened the wrong way.
The slaughtering was badly executed. One beast was shot 5 times and had to be roped at the finish for the final shot. If the cruelty to animals people had seen this there would have been real trouble.
To show how necessary it is that this matter be discussed on the Amendment, I shall now give the view of the slaughter-man who would, presumably, be condemned by the statement which I have just read. He said:
There were five beasts which were penned up; these are normally destroyed by the vet in charge, but as this was an immediate confirmed case and valuation was not finished this was carried out by myself.
He then goes on to say:
Of the 69 cattle we destroyed, 60 just loose in the byre. For the other nine we built a pen of gates. Of these nine we destroyed seven; the last two we had bother keeping them in. We then lassoed them with binder twine. I then put my arms round both their necks and held them while they were being shot. The last beast had four or five shots"—
I draw this particularly to the attention of the House—
due to faulty gun which had been reported to the vet in charge at the time of slaughter. The vet officer and field technician were present while the slaughtering was carried out; at no time were any objections raised in the method it was carried out.
The fact that no objections were raised to the method by which it was carried out is further evidence calling for extra veterinary supervision.
I wish to be as brief as your Ruling indicated, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the last statement I shall quote is that of Mr. Brown of Wandylaw, Chathill. He said:
On the evening of Tuesday, 9th August, 31 heifer calves and stirks were slaughtered at the steading. It was amongst these animals


the disease was diagnosed, hence the desire for an early slaughter. The following day, Wednesday, 10th August, the remainder of the cattle, 142 head and approximately 200 sheep were slaughtered at the steading; the remainder of the sheep, 1,340, were slaughtered at the site on the moor.
Naturally, having a very personal interest in the stock, I did not care to watch much of the slaughter operation, but on the few occasions when I had a look I was satisfied that the man, one person from Rothbury, was doing his work humanely. I never went near the moor. The report the shepherd gave me after driving in the first lot so disgusted me I simply could not face up to it, so the report I give of these phases is what was told me by my shepherd and one of the vets.
The slaughter enclosure was a long double pen. Into this were first driven the Blackface ewes and lambs, 500 in all. They were slaughtered where they stood and the carcases left lying. Over these sheep 300 ewes were driven and slaughtered on top of the Black-faces. Finally, the lambs, rams and any odd sheep (approximately 550) were driven on top of those already mentioned, and slaughtered in any fashion.
Later that evening, when all slaughtering was done. I drove to the moor, and one look at the shambles was sufficient for me. It was one pile of dead sheep lying on top of each other. Perhaps it was as well I made no close inspection.
The following day the vet."—
whose name I have—
 who superintended the burial informed me that some sheep were still alive and he mercifully cut their throats. How many died during the night is anyone's guess. My shepherd told me of a Blackface tup jumping out of the pen after being shot in the head and remaining there until he (the shepherd) brought in the last lot when he managed to get it in with them. In fact my shepherd was so upset with what he saw that he was almost on the point of fetching the last lot, the lambs, down to the steading for slaughter.
This is a most shocking and damaging report. It merits inquiry, and it demands from the Minister a condemnation of his own civil servants and those who organised the slaughter.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The noble Lord is not entitled on this Amendment to make accusations of maladministration. He is entitled to give illustrations to show why he considers that there should be a change in the law.

Viscount Lambton: Thank you for your Ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I conclude by saying that the examples which I have given show every possible ground for arguing that there should be

a change in the law. I hope that the Minister will accept what I propose by my Amendment.

Mr. Peart: I am rather surprised at the hon. Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) going beyond the arguments of the Amendment, which deals with the question of a double check. I shall reply to the hon. Member because he has made many allegations. Not only that, but he came to see me at the Ministry. This is on record. I wrote to him on 4th January as follows:
You left the matter in my hands for me to deal with. I started enquiries immediately on the specific points you put to me but they are not yet complete. If I am to do this to my own satisfaction or yours. I must know all that is in your mind. I would, therefore, suggest that you should tell me what the points are about which you say you remain dissatisfied so that I can see how they can best be cleared up.
I have never had a reply from the hon. Member.
The hon. Member has made a series of allegations about maladministration. I would be out of order to reply to these on the Amendment, but his behaviour in public has been shocking and I am sorry that he has not given me a follow-up to my letter, which he agreed to do. Instead, he went to a political meeting and now he comes to the House making charges about cruelty and the rest. I am making inquiries about the whole of these matters, but as yet I have had no response to my letter to the hon. Member.

Viscount Lambton: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Peart: No, certainly not. The hon. Member likes a lot of publicity outside, but he cannot "take it" inside.
We are dealing with an Amendment which affects the diagnostic services which are referred to in Clause 64. That is what the Amendment is about. These are the services provided in England and Wales—

Viscount Lambton: On a point of order. Is it in order, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the Minister to make a false statement about a letter and not to enable me to reply?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is perfectly open for the Minister to decide whether to give way. I should add that it would


be unfortunate if this incident were pursued any further in this debate. The Minister has dealt shortly with the accusation of maladministration, but any further discussion of those incidents, would, in my view, be out of order in relation to the Amendment.

Mr. Peart: I will deal with the matter more fully in due course on an Adjournment debate.
As I have said, the diagnostic services referred to in Clause 64 are the services provided in England and Wales by the Central Veterinary Laboratory and by the veterinary investigation centres run by my Department, and in Scotland by the centres run by the agricultural colleges. These veterinary investigation centres already undertake tests of a routine nature for private veterinary surgeons and charge for them. They also act as consultants at the request of private veterinary surgeons should a disease problem arise in any herd belonging to their clients. These consultant services are given free of charge.
The purpose of the inclusion of these services under Clause 64 is to ensure that they will be available to owners of livestock businesses who participate in the arrangements envisaged, such as the pig health scheme. The essential difference is that instead of being available as now at the request of the private veterinary surgeon, they will in future be available to members of the pig health scheme and any other such scheme that may be set up as a result of a concerted and co-operative effort by my Department's veterinary service and by the private veterinary surgeons. These laboratory services always check their results, in cases of doubt by applying other tests within the limits of basic scientific knowledge.
8.30 a.m.
We are not here dealing with diseases which must be notified. Fortunately, the diagnosis, though difficult at times, is relatively simple compared with the whole range of diseases with which we envisage the various schemes under the Cause will deal. In any case, I would have had to ask the House to reject inserting the phrase "double check" because it could be taken to mean a check by repetition rather than a check by a different method.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) has shown consider-

able interest in salmonellosis and, in view of that interest, it was right that he should have asked me a number of questions. It would appear that his Amendment would either compel the Minister to admit farmers into a health scheme or compel him to afford veterinary services to anybody who was in the scheme. However, the Amendment would achieve neither objective.
The purpose of the Clause is to give broad enabling powers to the Government to enable health schemes to be set up. The only one we have in operation at present is the Poultry Health Scheme, covered by Section 46 of the Diseases of Animals Act. We want to set up a pig health scheme, albeit a limited scheme, and other health schemes may arise in future, though we have not got anything else under active consideration at the moment. Our main aim is in relation to this pig health scheme.
The hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks made a number of points about specific diseases, but I am sure the House would not wish me to enter into a discussion on these in the context of a broad enabling Clause. Indeed, there is little I can add to what was said recently in reply to an Adjournment debate. I hope, with this explanation, that hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept my assurances.

Mr. Jopling: I am speaking now, following the Minister, because I was unable to catch your eye earlier, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Had I been called earlier I would have commented on Amendment No. 79. However, like most hon. Members, I was carried away by the shocking facts revealed by my hon. Friend the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton). They were not the sort of things one likes to hear at any time, least of all after having been awake all night. He revealed a disgraceful state of affairs and I trust that ultimately a full and complete inquiry will be conducted into that case. [Laughter.] Why these remarks should be greeted by laughter from the Treasury Bench I do not know.
I raised the matter with which Amendment No. 79 is concerned in Standing Committee, but did not receive an adequate answer. Subsection (1) states:
…the Minister shall have power, with the approval of the Treasury, to afford veterinary services, including diagnostic services, whether


free of charge or not, to persons who carry on livestock businesses…
The Minister described this as a broad enabling Clause; that is, enabling health schemes to be set up. But it goes wider than that. It allows for veterinary services to be provided, free of charge, to persons carrying on livestock businesses. We are, therefore, enabling the Minister to set up free veterinary services for farmers.
I do not see how the Minister can say anything to the contrary. It is clear from the third, fourth and fifth lines of subsection (1) that the powers are there for the Ministry to float a completely free veterinary service arrangement for farmers or for anyone else in the livestock business. This is a very new and fundamental departure which has so far passed unnoticed. It may be that this is not quite a power which the Minister intends to take. He has talked of a health scheme, a diagnostic service, and so on.
When I raised this matter in the Standing Committee the Minister's hon. Friend referred to the fact that I had asked whether this would mean the setting up of a sort of animal health service. He said:
Certainly it is not. It is simply a Clause included in the Act to give the Minister powers for the eradication of brucellosis, and so on, and for the setting up of health schemes such as the poultry health scheme which has done such a lot of good."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 29th November, 1966; c. 1213.]
We all agree that the Clause allows such health schemes to be set up, but it goes very much further than that.
It allows different veterinary services without specifying health schemes. It allows the Minister to finance the visit of the vet, to any farm where a beast is ill, or where his attendance is necessary. The Minister cannot be allowed to let this Clause go through without some sort of explanation on the lines I have indicated. I am not sure whether he has realised that he has taken these important and broad powers, or intended to do so, but he has, and I should be most grateful to have his comments.

Mr. Godber: I could conceive of no more difficult circumstance in which to debate anything of this nature—at this

time, after a long sitting, and with the various cross-currents that have arisen in the debate, but it would be quite wrong to part with this Amendment and Clause without some recognition of the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling). These are important points, and I hope the Minister will ask leave to give a further indication of his intentions.
Some of the major aspects of the prevention of disease in animals are extremely important in regard to what we want to achieve in animal health generally, and this Clause provides certain measures. My hon. Friend was right to pose these questions, and I hope the Minister will respond.
I now want to deal with the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson) in relation to the very serious problem of salmonella typhimurium, about which all concerned with calf rearing are most anxious. Very heavy losses have undoubtedly taken place as a result of this disease, but all the indications are that it can be and should be eradicated. No doubt the Minister was very much engaged in his mind with the other point, to which I shall turn in a moment, but I was disappointed with his reply, and I invite him to consider again the very serious points put by my hon. Friend, who has made a very special study of this disease. It is a study that could help enormously in avoiding calf losses.
I will not attempt to embark on the subject of foot-and-mouth disease except to say that my noble Friend the Member for Berwick - upon - Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has raised the matter in several ways. I do not think he should be blamed for this, because at an earlier stage he asked the Minister to institute inquiries. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that I wrote to him before Christmas to say that I knew nothing of the details but that as serious charges had been made I was appealing to the Minister himself, in the interests of his own veterinary service, if nothing else, to consider having a full and impartial inquiry.
I still think that an inquiry would help. It is only in this way, when serious charges have been made, that a satisfactory answer can be worked out. I do not wish to abuse our procedures, but I have now put on record the fact that


I made that request to the Minister before Christmas, and that I still feel that an inquiry would be the best way of dealing with a matter which arouses deep emotions in the minds of all of us when we contemplate the sort of thing with which we are now dealing.
I come back to the other issues and I invite the Minister to say something further now. It would help if he would give further consideration to the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks.

Mr. Peart: I started immediate inquiries when representations were made to me. I would add that I never complain about an hon. Member making representations. However, I shall be dealing with this matter on an Adjournment debate.
On the point made by the hon. Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Kitson), I entirely agree that salmonella typhimurium is a serious matter. I cannot commit myself at this stage, but I am carefully looking into the matter, and I will note his points with care.
On the point raised by the hon. Member for Westmorland (Mr. Jopling), following his intervention in Standing Committee we have carefully examined the position to see whether it is possible to narrow the situation still further. I have come to the conclusion that the only way in which this could be done would be by specifying a limited number of livestock businesses. At the moment, as I have said, we have two schemes in mind, the poultry health scheme and the pig health scheme. I wish to limit the number of types of livestock businesses, but I will carefully examine the hon. Member's point about a scheme.

Mr. Kitson: I hope the Minister will appreciate the seriousness of the problem. The Parliamentary Secretaries have been extremely helpful, but in an Adjournment debate one of the Parliamentary Secretaries said that he was awaiting a report, and surely that report has been received by now. I hope that the Minister will take action at the earliest possible moment.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 67.—(OFFENCES IN CONNECTION WITH GUARANTEED PRICES.)

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 81, in page 77, line 23, to leave out from the beginning to '(penalty ' and to insert:
(1) In the application in Northern Ireland of section (I)(d) of the Agriculture Act 1957 (powers of entry in connection with uaranteed prices) and any order made thereunder before the coming into force of this section. references to authorised officers of the Minister shall include references to authorised officers of the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland.
(2) In section 7(3)(b) of that Act.
I explained to the House, in moving Amendment No. 21, that it is necessary to provide specifically that authorised officers of the Ministry of Agriculture for Northern Ireland may exercise powers of entry for purposes of supervision of the calf subsidy in Northern Ireland. The object of this Amendment is to ensure that officials of that Ministry also have powers of entry for the purpose of protecting the price guarantee arrangements generally. It is simply a matter of ensuring that these officials have the same powers of entry as officials of United Kingdom Ministries.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 72.—(SHORT TITLE, INTERPRETA-TION, REPEALS AND COMMENCEMENT.)

Mr. Ross: I beg to move Amendment No. 82, in page 79, line 34, at the end to insert:
assignment', in relation to Scotland, means assignation.
This is a simple matter of omission, the Amendment making clear to everyone that in Scottish legal terminology the noun used as equivalent to the verb "to assign" is "assignation" and not "assignment ".

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 1.—(THE MEAT AND LIVESTOCK COMMISSON.)

8.45 a.m.

Sir Frank Pearson: I beg to move Amendment No. 83, in page 81, line 31, to leave out from ' flocks' to the end of line 33.
This Amendment refers to paragraph 5 of Schedule 1, which gives power to the


Meat and Livestock Commission to maintain and publish certain registers. It reads:
Maintaining and publishing registers of cattle and pig herds and sheep flocks appearing to the Commission to be efficiently managed and to conform to the standards specified by the Commission.
A similar Amendment to that now being moved was debated in the Standing Committee, more or less as a probing Amendment. However, as our probing proceeded, it became more and more evident that there was a point in regard to subsection (1) which needed closer scrutiny. If the Commission is empowered to maintain and publish these records, records which will, in fact, pick and choose between various types of enterprise, the publication of them will set the hallmark of efficiency and approbation. Then, quite clearly, we shall get ourselves into the position whereby the Commission must not only have a complete survey of the whole field of production, but, having made the survey, must also make a survey as to efficiency.
This would appear to be an enormous task, and what worried hon. Members in the Standing Committee was that this list should be published in such a way as almost to achieve a form of industrial blackmail. Having expressed these very real doubts in the Committee, we were relieved to have a most sympathetic hearing from the Parliamentary Secretary and, although he was here a moment ago, I regret that he appears to have disappeared just when I would very much have appreciated his presence.
I would like to quote from the record of the sitting of the Standing Committee on 9th August last, in which the Parliamentary Secretary replied to the point we raised. He then said:
I believe that the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) has hit on a point here in suggesting that this might give the impression that the Commission was selecting from and discriminating between herds. I see no reason why we should not look at this wording to see whether we can avoid creating any idea that the Commission is making a judgment without some reason."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee A, 9th August, 1966; c. 587.]
That, at the time, appeared to be a highly satisfactory assurance and it is with very great regret that we have looked up the present Bill and found

that no alteration whatever has been made to meet this very firm assurance given by the Parliamentary Secretary.
I hope that the Minister will fully justify why, after making these statements, no alteration in the Bill has been made. The only interpretation we can place on this failure to take action is that the Minister has purposely set out to create a register which will discriminate, and discriminate most harmully between producers.
If that is really his intention, when the Parliamentary Secretary has accepted that such discrimination is highly unsatisfactory, it will need a great deal of argument to convince this side of the House that the Minister was justified in not altering the record in any way.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support my hon. Friend. I support the maintenance and publishing of registers of this type for breeding stock, because they are a great help to people in the industry, particularly commercial breeders, since they let them know where to get breeding stock. The accredited poultry scheme, for example, did a great deal of good. On the other hand, unless there are objective standards by which the register is made up the whole idea of a register completely fails, because it will not commend itself to the industry and there will just be a lot of bickering, and so on.
The Parliamentary Secretary is well aware of the launching of P.I.D.A.'s list of accredited and elite herds. The register in that case is based on progeny testing and performance testing, which are two of the best objective standards one can have. Yet even that scheme has taken a long time to get under way, and it led to a great number of difficulties between breeders. Those who were not included wanted to know why, and a lot of kid glove handling was needed by those responsible for launching it.
Even with objective standards, the Parliamentary Secretary must realise that such registers lead to difficulties and the matter is not easy to handle. I would therefore be interested to hear how the thoughts within the Ministry have developed after the assurance in Committee, because it is very important not only to breeders to know where they stand but also to the great mass of commercial breeders in the livestock industry, who


will depend for schemes of improvement on how this kind of register is made and administered.

Mr. Hoy: I think that I know a little about the scheme which the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) recalled and about the difficulties in putting it into practice. However, this is somewhat different.
If the Amendment were accepted, it is arguable whether it would, in fact, prevent the Commission, when maintaining and publishing registers of herds and flocks under the provisions in paragraph 5 of Part I of Schedule 1, from excluding those herds and flocks which were inefficiently managed or failed to conform to standards specified by the Commission, but if Parliament had deliberately deleted such a provision it would be bound to influence the Commission against using criteria of the types described to exclude some flocks and herds from registers.
We think that that would be wrong, since part of the purpose of maintaining and publishing registers would be to let buyers of the products of those herds and flocks know that they could rely on the fact that the herds and flocks had been efficiently managed and that they conformed to other minimum standards laid down by the Commission.
In other words, we think that some element of selection is an essential ingredient of the function of maintaining and publishing herd and flock registers. The Commission would, of course, have to apply the specified standards and methods of measurement in a uniform and consistent manner from herd to herd and flock to flock. There could be no question of discrimination between one herd and another. But in the sense that some herds would be accepted for the register because they were up to certain minimum standards and others would not be accepted because they failed to reach these standards, there would be—in the words of the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Sir Frank Pearson) in Standing Committee—some sorting of" the sheep from the goats."
It is difficult to see how effective recording schemes aimed at identifying animals of superior merit for breeding

can be run on a national scale unless information about the production performance of animals, both individually and on a herd or flock basis, is available centrally; and it would be essential not to include in the registers herds or flocks which failed to reach minimum standards.
At the same time, the fact that a herd was not on a register would not necessarily mean that it had been refused acceptance, because paragraph 5 provides only for voluntary participation in registers. No one is obliged to take part, and there is no question of producers being forced into an over-centralised system. If a herd is not on the register, it could be because it had applied and failed or because it simply had not applied. A register would say something positive about those included, but anything about those not included would be irrelevant.
We suggest, therefore, that the important considerations are, first, that the register should be on a voluntary basis, and, secondly, that the specified standards should be consistently applied. That is what we think the Bill should provide, and that is why we could not accept the hon. Gentleman's Amendment; but I think he will agree that I have given a fair explanation of the position, and I hope that he will find it satisfactory.

Sir Frank Pearson: I thank the Joint Parliamentary Secretary for what up to a point quietens my fears, though I must say that had we not been debating this at an early hour of the morning and had more time been available there is a great deal of scope for worth-while debate. This is one of the reasons why I regret that we have had to curtail debate on these latter stages of the Bill: there are a number of most important points that are of interest to the industry.
The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has given us the valuable assurance that this is entirely a voluntary scheme. I should greatly have appreciated it had the Parliamentary Secretary, who took such a keen interest in the Amendment in Committee, been able to be on the Government Front Bench at this moment. However, in the circumstances I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Amendment made: No. 84, in page 86, line 6, leave out from 'that' to end of line 8 and insert:
'each member is appointed by reference to one only of the above paragraphs, and one member at least by reference to each of them '.—[Mr. Hoy.]

9.0 a.m.

Mr. Henry Clark: I beg to move Amendment No. 85, in page 86, line 13, after 'Scotland', to insert 'and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are considering, at the same time, Amendment No. 87, in line 38, after 'Scotland', insert 'and Northern Ireland'.

Mr. Clark: The Amendment has been tabled to put right the omission to take full account of the interests of Northern Ireland in the affairs of the Meat and Livestock Commission. I argued this point at some length in Committee and received a reasonably sympathetic hearing from the Government. I therefore move this Amendment in the hope that it will be accepted. I do not want to labour the point.
Northern Ireland, though a small part of the United Kingdom, contributes about one-seventh of the livestock produce of the United Kingdom. I do not suggest that Northern Ireland interests be represented on the Production Committee, but someone on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees should be in a position to advise these Committees and the Commission about Northern Ireland affairs.
We in Northern Ireland produce a great deal of meat and virtually all of it comes across to Great Britain and into the area controlled by the Commission. I hope that the Minister, having had time to consider this matter, will be prepared to accept the Amendment and see that Northern Ireland interests are properly looked after on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees.

Mr. Hoy: It is true that this Amendment was considered in Committee, when my hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary said he would look at it again. We have done so in the light of what the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Mr. Henry Clark) said. But having done so with great sympathy, we see no reason

to alter our view or to accept the Amendment.
The Commission will be concerned only with matters within Great Britain and the subjects to be considered by the Production and Distribution Committees will all be matters of relevance to the production, marketing and distribution of livestock and livestock products in Great Britain. It is true that we expect the Commission to establish and maintain close relations with the Northern Ireland industry through whatever channels may be available and appropriate. Surely that is the best way to ensure that the interests of the industry on both sides are not overlooked.

Mr. Henry Clark: It is now rather late in the morning—indeed, after the time at which I usually get up. Being normally rather short-tempered at breakfast, I have some sympathy with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. Nine o'clock is my worst hour of the morning, as well. But here is a simple Amendment which would improve the Bill and there is no reason for rejecting it. Could not the Government for once accept an Amendment?
The hon. Gentleman's reasons against the Amendment are spurious. I do not want to labour this, because there is no point in prolonging the sitting unnecessarily but it is just on the Distribution and Consumers' Committees that Northern Ireland interests should be represented because the consumers of Northern Ireland meat are very largely in Great Britain.
Northern Ireland is part of the United Kingdom and its taxpayers will be paying a lot towards the cost of the Commission. They should have some say not on the Commission itself, but on these two Committees. Just to show that, after this long night, there is no ill feeling between the two sides of the House on this important matter, the Government could well accept the Amendment in the interests of Northern Ireland and a better Commission.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment made: No. 86, in page 86, line 32, leave out from "that" to end of line 33 and insert:
each member is appointed by reference to one only of the above paragraphs, and one member at least by reference to each of them".—[Mr. Hoy.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 2.—(SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS WITH RESPECT TO DEVELOPMENT SCHEMES.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 88, in page 87, line 42, to leave out 'twenty-eight' and to insert 'fifty-six'.
This is a paving Amendment and I suggest that it would be for the convenience of the House if with it we took Amendment No. 89, as they are two aspects of the same issue.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: If that is convenient.

Mr. Hoy: When we discussed the Schedule in Standing Committee the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (Mr. Stodart) moved an Amendment to extend from 28 days to three months the period during which objections to a draft development scheme might be made. We said that we would consider his arguments for at least some extension of the period. We have looked into the matter very carefully again and have concluded that we should suggest to the House that the period be extended from four to eight weeks. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will feel that that meets his case.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 88, line 11, leave out 'twenty-eight' and insert 'fifty-six'.—[Mr. Hoy.]

Orders of the Day — Schedule 3.—(CONDITIONS APPLYING TO AMALGAMATED AGRICULTURAL UNITS.)

Amendment made: In page 91, line 22, leave out 'Fourth' and insert 'Third'.—[Mr. Peart.]

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 92, in page 91, line 26, to leave out from 'transfer' to the end of line 34 and to insert:
'to any other a part only, or any estate or interest in a part only, of the land comprised in the unit'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this Amendment can be discussed the Opposition Amendment No. 93, in page 91, line 34, at end insert:
(c) the transfer is by way of sale or eviction of a tenancy of less than one-twentieth of the combined holding for purposes other than agriculture.

Mr. Peart: It would also be convenient to take the Government Amendments Nos. 94 and 141.
The purpose of Amendment No. 92 is to stop a loophole which would have allowed land subject to Schedule 3 to be transferred without the Minister's consent.
Amendments Nos. 94 and 141 will still make it possible to let land for grazing or mowing during a specified period of the year without breaching the conditions of the Schedule and make provision for lettings by conacre in Northern Ireland.
I hope that with that explanation the Amendments will be accepted.

Mr. Henry Clark: I welcome Amendment No. 141, which clarifies a point which it might have taken some time and trouble to clarify.
There are two misprints in Amendment No. 93. First, my name was omitted from the proposers of the Amendment. Secondly, the word "eviction" should read "creation".
Like most of the Amendments suggested by my hon. Friends, this is designed to make the Bill more effective and to make it work better. It deals with Part II of the Bill which seeks to encourage amalgamations and, where an amalgamation is created, to ensure that land amalgamated with the assistance of Government money remains in one unit. Quite rightly, there are provisions to say that land amalgamated with the assistance of Government money shall not be divided except with the Minister's consent.
There are one or two exceptions when the Minister's consent is not necessary, Amendment No. 141 being one. It would be very much in the interests of the smooth working of the Bill if the Minister accepted Amendment No. 93 as a further exception. We have had eloquent speeches about the amount of agricultural land which is lost year by year. Anyone who lives in the countryside knows perfectly well that there are always people making demands on farmers for small pieces of their land. In a field in my own area there is a small sewage plant for a public elementary school for which a tenancy has been created and in the next field an electricity transformer is to be built in a small enclave.
Time and again, when small lots are taken off, for bus stations, road widening and petrol stations, there will still be the whole process to go through. It is


tedious and silly enough as it is if, every time a minute piece of land is taken off a combined holding, the Minister has to be asked for permission. He will not then exercise his judgment faculties so accurately.
If permission for small pieces of property which is not unified did not have to be sought from the Minister, people will be less inhibited and less frightened of accepting Government assistance, and this will especially be so if they know they will not be tied up with red tape every time there is a transaction of a small piece of land. As far as I can see, every time a wayleaf is signed for a telegraph pole, one would have to send to the Ministry. We should make sure that these small changes do not involve much red tape, not only for the Minister, who does not have to spend his own money, but for the farmer, who may sometimes spend a whole evening composing a letter to the Minister of Agriculture asking him —[Interruption.]
The Minister seems to think that it is late. I thought he was one of those on that side of the House which suggested that the House should sit in the morning?

Mr. Peart: But not the afternoon—

Mr. Clark: We are quite prepared to carry on through the morning, so that the House does not sit this afternoon. I would be delighted to get to bed early this evening. But if the Bill is important, it justifies discussion. On the other hand, if we know in advance that the Minister will not listen to discussion, and that the chances of acceptance of amendments are remote, we might as well have gone off home hours ago; but we believe in democratic government.
It may be wondered why I suggest one twentieth in the Amendment. One twentieth seemed reasonable. I suggest the whole Amendment is reasonable and I ask the Minister to accept it.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 94, in page 91, line 48, after 'include', insert 'subject to paragraph (b) below'.—[Mr.
Peart.]

No. 141, in page 91, line 50, at end insert:

(b) do not include references to the granting or assignment of any right of occupation the grant of which is made (whether or not expressly to that effect) in contemplation of the use of the land only for grazing or mowing during some specified period of the year, and, without prejudice to the foregoing words, in Northern Ireland do not include references to the transfer or assignment of any rights arising by virtue of a conacre agreement.—[Mr. Peart]

Mr. Stodart: I am sure that it will be a relief to the House that in view of a letter which I have had from the Joint Parliamentary Secretary on this subject, I do not propose to move my Amendment No. 96, in page 92, line 12, at end insert:
Provided that before refusing his consent under this paragraph, the appropriate Minister shall grant to the person applying for such consent an opportunity of being heard.

Mr. Peart: I beg to move Amendment No. 98, in page 92, line 41, leave out from 'person' to end of line 43 and insert:
'by whom the condition specified in paragraph 3 or paragraph 4 above is breached as respects any unit of land shall be liable to pay to the appropriate Minister'.
It would also be convenient if we discussed with this the remaining Government Amendments to Schedule 3, Amendments Nos. 98 to 110 inclusive, and also Nos. 142 and 143. I hope that Amendment No. 103, in page 93, line 21, to leave out 'one thousand' and to insert 'two hundred and fifty' can also be considered in this context.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Yes, if that is the wish of the House.

Mr. Peart: We had some criticism in Standing Committee about the provisions of what is now Schedule 3. Attention focussed on the method of fixing the amounts due to the Minister on breach of the conditions of the Schedule. This also applied to the opportunities available for challenging that amount and other matters in connection with a breach. We promised to look into these questions and, having done so, have produced proposals which go a long way towards meeting the doubts expressed in some quarters about the operation of the Schedule.
These proposals are given effect by the Amendment we are now discussing and others which follow. It might be for


the convenience of the House if I explained, briefly, what our new proposals are for Schedule 3, so that the present Amendment and others relating to it which follow can be seen in their proper context.
We propose four main changes in the Schedule. First, that the so called penal sum should be replaced by the concept of what might be called damage to farm structure. Secondly, we propose that instead of being able to fix the amount due, the Minister should become entitled to a definite sum. Thirdly, we are providing arbitration as the method of settling the amount of that sum and other facts relating to the breach. Finally, we are dropping the idea of charging interest on this particular sum.
I hope that these new arrangements will be welcomed as a positive attempt to meet some of the suggestions made, and to ensure that if its conditions are breached, an appropriate balance is held between the public interest and the rights of the private individuals concerned. Against this background I would add that we took the view that having provided for arbitration it would be inappropriate to retain the provision whereby the Minister virtually determined that there was a breach and created the liability by serving his demand.
Under the new arrangements both liability and the amount that the Minister can demand are to be settled by agreement or arbitration. Amendment No. 98 therefore provides that liability to repay grants and to pay the additional sum arises at the time of the breach; and Amendment No. 99 makes the liability to pay interest on the grants run until payment.
Amendments No. 100 and 102 define the additional sum over and above the repayment of certain grants and loans, which is to be paid to the Minister if the conditions of paragraphs 3 or 4 of the Schedule are breached. Amendments No. 101 and 110 make it clear that these sums can be charged on the estate and interest only in the land comprised in the unit which the person responsible had at the time of the breach. I know that the Opposition put down Amendment No. 103, which would reduce from £1,000 to £250 the maximum sum which the Minister could demand for a breach of the conditions. We have gone a long

way to meeting their points and relaxing the conditions in Schedule 3. I hope that what I have said will be extremely helpful to them, without their pressing this particular Amendment, which we could not accept.

Mr. Godber: We are grateful to the Minister for going some way to meet the very genuine concern felt over the Schedule. Undoubtedly the Amendments put forward, in so far as I can follow them, meet many of the points made. It would seem that the one line in the whole of the page that has not been altered is that which we sought to change and which was dealt with in our Amendment No. 103. As I read it this figure would still remain when everything about it has been moved. That seems rather strange.

9.15 a.m.

Mr. Peart: The right hon. Gentleman is quite right, but I think that he will agree that the new arrangements go a long way to meeting his points.

Mr. Godber: It looks as though if we had not tried to amend the £1,000 that would have gone, too. Everything else seems to have gone except this point. Nevertheless, we accept that the right hon. Gentleman has moved a substantial way over the Schedule, and when it is possible to look at this more fully our colleagues in another place will be able to consider the appropriateness of this figure. Generally speaking this is an advance, and we welcome it.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: No. 99, page 92, line 46, after second 'interest' insert 'until payment'.

No. 100, in page 93, leave out lines 4 to 9 and insert:
(b) subject to sub-paragraph (2) below, an additional amount equal to so much of the value of the unit, when subject to the conditions imposed by this Schedule, as is attributable to the land which is the subject of the breach.

No. 101, in page 93, line 11, at end insert 'comprised in the unit'.

No. 102, in page 93, leave out lines 14 to 20 and insert:
(2) The additional amount payable by virtue of sub-paragraph (1)(b) above shall not exceed—
 (a) the amount by which the value of the land which is the subject of the breach, when


freed from all conditions under this Schedule, exceeds the value attributable thereto as mentioned in that sub-paragraph, or,

No. 104, in page 93, leave out lines 25 to 31 and insert:
(3) Before commencing proceedings against any person to enforce the liability imposed on him by, or the charge arising under, subparagraph (1) above, the appropriate Minister shall serve on him a notice specifying the condition alleged to have been breached and, if it is the condition relating to use, the nature of the use constituting the breach; and, unless within two months of the service of the notice that person has—
(a) admitted in writing the breach and his liability in respect thereof or, as the case may be, the breach and the existence of the charge, and
(b) agreed in writing the amount recoverable by virtue of paragraph (b) of that subparagraph,
the matter or matters still in issue shall be determined by arbitration.
(4) Section 77 of the Agricultural Holdings Act 1948 (procedure for arbitrations) shall have effect as if any such matter were one required by that Act to be determined by arbitration under that Act.
(5) Sections 75 and 77 of the Agricultural Holdings (Scotland) Act 1949 (provisions regarding arbitrations) shall have effect as if any question in sub-paragraph (3) above were a matter required by that Act to be deterbined thereunder; and sections 78 and 87(2) of that Act shall have effect as if the parties to the dispute were the landlord and tenant of an agricultural holding.
(6) For the purposes of the Limitation Act 1939, no cause of action or right to receive money shall be deemed to have accrued to the appropriate Minister by virtue of sub-paragraph (1) above until the date on which he served the notice referred to in sub-paragraph (3) above.—[Mr. Peart.]
No. 105, in page 93, line 32, leave out 'the breach of the' and insert 'a breach of either of the said'.
No. 106, in page 93, line 34, leave out from not)' to second that' in line 40 and insert any person who is or was at any time entitled under the lease, agreement or tenancy to enforce those terms, or to exercise by forfeiture or otherwise any sanction for their breach, shall be liable to pay to the appropriate Minister the amounts specified in subparagraph (1) above so far as not recovered from any other person unless he shows to the satisfaction of the court in, which proceedings for recovery are taken against him'.
No. 107, in page 93, line 43, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 on page 94.
No. 108, in page 94, line 6, after 'breach', insert 'or, if he accepts a lesser amount in satisfaction of those sums, on the giving by him of a written discharge therefor'.
No. 109, in page 94, line 13, at end insert 'or where he has already become so liable by reason of a previous breach of condition'.

No. 110, in page 94, line 44, after land ', insert ' comprised in the unit '.
No. 142, in page 95, line 1, after Ireland', insert '(a)'.
No. 143, in page 95, line 3, at end add:

(b) in paragraph 7(3) above, for the words 'determined by arbitration' there shall be substituted the words 'referred to and determined by the Lands Tribunal for Northern Ireland';
(c) paragraph 7(4) and (5) above shall be omitted;
(d) for any reference to the Limitation Act 1939 there shall be substituted a reference to the Statute of Limitations (Northern Ireland) 1958.

Orders of the Day — Schedule.—(IMPROVEMENTS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT.)

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I beg to move Amendment No. 122, in page 95, line 13, after "power" to insert "or gas".
After over 17 hours of continuous debate it may seem somewhat strange that I should seek to insert "gas", but my purpose is to put gas on the same footing as electricity in farm improvement schemes. Gas is already used in agriculture, mainly from mobile containers for heating boiler houses and for similar purposes.
Developments in the North Sea have promised a dramatic increase in the supply of this new indigenous fuel, but that increase will not be without cost to agriculture. The gas landfall installations and processing plants will take some good agricultural land in Norfolk and elsewhere permanently out of production, and the pipelines will cross some of the best corn-growing land in the country.
In certain areas gas may well become the cheapest fuel available for agricultural purposes, especially for grain drying. It may become cheaper than oil and would, of course, have the advantage of needing no cost in foreign exchange. Moreover, technical progress and invention may develop in the future new uses for gas applicable to agriculture far beyond our present expectation.
Since I put the Amendment down, I have obtained the new leaflet, "Agricultural Investment Grants", in which I see that Appendix 1(e) includes gas, for the first time, I think, in an agricultural pamphlet. The reference is to gas or electricity supply other than for dwelling-houses. As I understand, that is, at the moment, for fixed equipment attracting


what was formerly the 10 per cent. grant, but which will now be the 12½i per cent. grant. If I am right in that, may I ask why gas is included only under Clause 31? It seems to me that it should be with electricity in Schedule 4 for farm improvement schemes, where, of course, it would qualify for a higher rate of grant.
I have consulted the N.F.U. on this matter, and I am authorised to say that this suggestion has its support. I do not think that it had previously occurred to the union that the economics of gas heating might be completely revolutionised.
In case the Minister should argue that gas installations are too expensive, may I remind him that all the farm improvement scheme safeguards would prevent grants from going on uneconomic schemes. It seems to me that the present omission of gas is discriminating in favour of one nationalised industry against another. Gas and electricity, where they are available for farm use, should receive the same rate of grant and encouragement from the Government.

Mr. John Mackie: I must declare an interest here. More than a year ago now, I applied for a gas supply from the bottom of the road to my farm, on the basis that a 2-ft. gas main went through the farm and out the other side and the gas board ought to give me an off-take. But I failed to get either. However, that is not the reason why we are prepared to be accommodating and include gas as the hon. Gentleman asks us to do by his Amendment.
At this hour of the morning, I need say no more. We all appreciate that, if gas gets cheaper, it will become more and more used on farms from mobile sources of supply for grain driers and in many other ways. We are very happy to include gas in the Schedule.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. John Mackie: I beg to move Amendment No. 111, in page 95, line 27, at the end to insert:
13. Protection and improvement of river banks".

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We can discuss, at the same time, the Amendment to the proposed Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. J. E. B. Hill), at the end to add:
construction of dams and culverts

Mr. Mackie: This Amendment would enable grant to be paid on work for the protection and improvement of river banks. Drainage authorities already have power under land drainage legislation to carry out maintenance, improvement and new works on rivers, and we should normally expect this sort of work to be undertaken by them. But there may sometimes be valid reasons why an authority would be unable or unwilling to undertake a specific piece of work.
It was argued in Committee that it would be unreasonable to object to farmers doing the work themselves in such cases with the agreement of the river authority, and we promised to consider whether grant could be allowed on this basis under the Farm Improvement Scheme.
There is always a danger of overlapping when grants are available from two sources for one class of work, but we do not want to be unreasonable about this. We are, therefore, prepared to admit for grant works carried out by farmers with the agreement of the river authority, subject to the usual tests of the Scheme and provided that they are technically sound.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: I am glad that the Government have decided to meet the case which was so ably argued in Committee, and my object is to ensure that, where appropriate, dams and culverts would be eligible as part of a river bank protection scheme. Normally, one would suppose that they would form part of either an irrigation scheme or a drainage scheme, but in unsuitable soil conditions quite small streams can cause serious bank erosion, and a dam can be a useful way of avoiding scar at the base of the bank and, incidentally, benefiting a fair amount of land by giving control of the water table. For a variety of reasons, that might be quite separate from an irrigation scheme.
Likewise, a culvert is usually part of a drainage scheme and, therefore, eligible for a land drainage grant, but there may be occasions when a culvert is the best means of avoiding bank collapse at a difficult spot. Culverts, though not dams, are now specified in the new explanatory leaflet on grant for fixed equipment as eligible for 12½ per cent. grant. I would


prefer to see provision for them to be included in appropriate cases in a Farm Improvement Scheme.
9.30 a.m.
Finally, concerning the new explanatory leaflet, I would like to know from the Minister the relationship between the new fixed equipment grant of 12½ per cent. and the existing farm improvement, water supply and drainage grants. Will the Minister confirm that irrigation schemes, for example, will continue to be dealt with under the farm water supplies provisions for the higher rate of grant and that, in general, improvements will not, as it were, be downgraded into the fixed equipment category, thereby attracting the lower rate of grant? It is not entirely clear from the pamphlet except, possibly, with very careful study, and it would be helpful if the Minister could confirm that the fixed equipment grant is complementary to existing grant schemes and is not intended to encroach upon them.

Mr. John Mackie: The purpose of the Amendment is to establish that dams and culverts are eligible for grant under the farm improvement scheme. I would not question the eligibility of these items where they are connected with a land improvement scheme which passes all the tests of the scheme. Dams could be eligible, for example, in connection with the reclamation of land and culverts in connection with the improvement of roads and bridges. But to list these items specifically and in isolation might convey the quite wrong impression that farm improvement grant is available for land drainage works as such even when they were unconnected with land improvements in the farm improvement sense.
We shall continue to grant-aid dams in connection with land reclamation and culverts will continue to be eligible where they are part of or ancillary to any of the items listed in Schedule 3. Dams and culverts required for a purpose not connected with eligible farm improvement works are not, however, appropriate to this scheme and fall to be considered for grant aid, if at all, under the land drainage legislation.
With this assurance that improvements will be eligible when they are ancillary to other improvements, I hope that the

hon. Member will not press his Amendment. I do not have with me a copy of the leaflet to which he has referred, but I will confirm in writing the position concerning any dubiety in it on the points which the hon. Member has mentioned.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. David Steel: I beg to move Amendment No. 112, in page 95, line 31, to leave out from 'below' to 'other' in line 33, and to insert:
the provision and installation for agricultural purposes of static plant or machinery (including fixtures and fittings) and mobile equipment when it is a necessary part of a fixed installation'.

Mr. Speaker: With this Amendment we will take Amendment No. 115, in page 95, line 36, leave out from 'the' to is ' in line 37 and insert:
'said plant, machinery or equipment '.

Mr. Steel: At half-past nine in the morning, having waited through the night to move the Amendment, it is somewhat disappointing to realise that one could have been in bed all the time and come fresh to the subject.
I wish to persuade the Government to accept the Amendment, which I have brought forward as a result of representations which have been made to me by farmers in my constituency. The point is that Schedule 4 refers to fixed plant or machinery, and the substance of the Amendment is to amend "fixed" to "static" and to include as eligible for grant mobile equipment when it is a necessary part of a fixed installation.
I have in mind augers and blowers for silos or grain bins and also mobile drying equipment for floor drying of grain or ventilation of potato stocks. If a farmer has, say, three silos side by side and he decides to install three blowers and he concretes them into the floor or bolts them down in some way, they are eligible for grant. If, on the other hand, he has a more up-to-date method of having only one blower, which may be on small iron wheels and which is movable between the three silos, it is not eligible for grant. It seems, therefore, that we may in a sense be encouraging a less efficient form of farming by an absence of flexibility in the Schedule.
When this matter was first suggested to me, I took it up with the Minister who at the time was responsible for agriculture in Scotland, the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, who replied in a letter which, I thought, was sympathetic. He pointed out that my suggestion could not be implemented, except by amendment to the Bill. Being accommodating by nature, I have supplied a suitable Amendment to that end.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: I support the Amendment, the purpose of which I, too, recommended in Standing Committee, when he Parliamentary Secretary expressed considerable sympathy for the idea, although he pointed out the difficulty of drawing the line between moveable and fixed machinery. The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) illustrated the problem, as I did in Committee, although I will not delay the House by repeating my comments. Economies can be made when there is, for example, loading equipment for three silos. It can be moved about and it is not necessary to have an installation in triplicate.

Mr. Hawkins: I oppose the Amendment because it is not right to grant aid such things as portable augers and equipment which can be picked up and carried from place to place. The most satisfactory procedure is to grant aid fixed machinery and have the farmer supply his own augers and similar equipment. As I said in Committee, an Amendment of this type is not a practical proposition.

Mr. Ross: The hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) pointed out that he had been in correspondence with my noble Friend Lord Hughes, but I regret to inform the hon. Gentleman that he construed the sympathy expressed in that correspondence too widely, for my noble Friend's letter concluded:
…but we think the terms of the Bill are right".
As the hon. Gentleman explained, the purpose of the Amendment is to depart from the fixed equipment idea—and not just in a limited way—with a view to admitting mobile equipment.
The Farm Improvement Scheme has, from the start, been related to long-term improvements. It is because of this that

we recently took the step of introducing the grant for fixed equipment. It being a new step, it is too early to push this matter down yet another road, bearing in mind the difficulties that could arise. After all, the hon. Gentleman has in mind machinery which could be transported not just from one part of a farm to another, but from one farm to another, or elsewhere. If we are to deal with this matter in relation to the aims of the Farm Improvement Scheme, we must stick to the Bill as drafted.
I regret to have to disappoint the hon. Gentleman. At this hour I might only add that unless we get away from here quickly, we may become fixed equipment.

Mr. James Davidson: I should, perhaps, declare my interest—it is obviously an obsolete one—in that I have some machinery for which I stand no chance of getting the grant. I have aluminium alloy grain bins and I mention this equipment to illustrate how borderline cases can occur. There are bolts around the edges of the bins and these are grouted into concrete. They are, therefore, fixed and would qualify for grant. However, if the bolts were taken out the bins would no longer qualify for grant.
I mention this to show what could be done—I am not suggesting it should be done—with a portable auger. One could dig a hole in the ground, put in a sandy mixture of concrete so that, when the inspector came round, it would be a fixed installation. When the inspector left, the machine could be pulled out of the hole and moved about. I am not suggesting that a farmer should do this, but it illustrates in a practical way how borderline this matter is.

Mr. Ross: There is no question of borderline; it has to be fixed. Do not let us have any other kind of "fix".

Amendment negatived.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 5.—(RURAL DEVELOPMENT BOARDS.)

Amendments made: No. 116, in page 96, line 36, leave out 'specifying' and insert specify'.—[ Mr. Hoy.]

No. 117, in page 100, line 22, leave out from 'shall' to 'and' in line 24 and insert:
'disclose the fact as soon as practicable after the commencement of the meeting.' —[Mr. Hoy.]

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 118, in page 100, line 29, at the end to insert:
Provided that this sub-paragraph shall not apply to any interest which a member may have—

(a) as an inhabitant of the Board's area, or the owner of an estate or interest in land in that area, or
(b) as an applicant or prospective applicant for any consent, licence, grant or loan,
being an interest which he has in common with all other such inhabitants, owners, applicants or prospective applicants, or with any class thereof; and provided also that the chairman at any meeting, may, at his discretion, permit a member to take part in the consideration or discussion of any question (but not to vote thereon) notwithstanding that the member has an interest to which this sub-paragraph applies, but subject to such restrictions as the chairman may think it right to impose.
We promised in Committee to do something to meet the needs of people who might perhaps be unnecessarily debarred, and the purposes of this Amendment is to ensure that local residents are not unreasonably restricted at Board meetings. I am sure that this Amendment will meet with the approval of the House.

Amendment agreed to.

Orders of the Day — Schedule 7.—(REPEALS.)

Mr. Hoy: I beg to move Amendment No. 119, in page 103, line 25, at the end to insert:

5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2.
The House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957.
 In Part II of Schedule 1, the words 'The Pig Industry Development Authority'.

It might be for the convenience of the House if, with this Amendment, we took Amendment No. 120.

These Amendments would ensure that when the Pig Industry Development Authority is dissolved the name of the Authority will be removed from the list of those bodies in the First Schedule to the House of Commons Disqualification Act, 1957 whose members are disqualified from membership of the House of Commons.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: No. 120 in page 104, line 10, after "1957" insert:
and in the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957".—[Mr. Hoy.]
Bill to be read the Third time Tomorrow, and to be printed.—[Bill 169.]

Orders of the Day — INSURANCE (RACIAL DISCRIMINATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr.Bishop.]

9.43 a.m.

Mr. David Marquand: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to raise the question of racial discrimination in the field of insurance, even at this hour of the morning. And if I may say so, I am even more grateful to my hon. Friend who has been here all through the night in order to have the pleasure of replying.
This is an extremely important subject, for the following reasons. The Government have laid it down on many occasions that their policy is to aid the speediest possible absorption of coloured immigrants from the Commonwealth into the social and cultural life of the country, and to oppose any form of racial discrimination against them. This policy is all the more important since the nature of the problem is changing. It is no longer primarily a question—or in the fairly near future will no longer be primarily a question—of how to absorb Commonwealth immigrants, but one of how to ensure that coloured Englishmen, born in this country, are not discriminated against because of the colour of their skin.
I believe that since this general policy of opposition to any form of racial discrimination is accepted by the Government, it follows that if there appears to be prima facie evidence of discrimination in any important area of social life, the Government have a clear obligation at the very least to make certain whether the prima facie evidence is true, and, if it is true and is valid, to take some action on it.
I further assert that this is particularly true of the general field of insurance and in particular two aspects of insurance—life assurance and motor insurance. It is undeniable that accessibility to life assurance on fair terms is a prerequisite of a full and secure family life in an advanced society like ours. Also, it is in many cases a precondition of professional employment of various kinds.
I suggest that in the matter of motor insurance the obligation on the Government to make certain that there is no form of discrimination is being carried out is even clearer. One cannot legally drive a car unless it is insured. One is not allowed to own a car unless one insures it. These are legal obligations. Thus, in a the field of motor insurance the insurance companies are in a sense acting as agents of the State. In this sphere, above all, therefore, it seems to me that the Government have a duty to see to it that the insurance companies are acting in conformity with public policy and at the very least to inquire into the facts if the evidence appears to suggest that they are not doing so.
In my view, there is clear prima facie evidence which suggests that in the matter of life insurance and of motor insurance the insurance companies are not now acting in conformity with public policy and that—not necessarily by design, but, nevertheless, in practice—the policies which they carry out amount to racial discrimination against a portion of the citizens of this country.
I say that there is prima facie evidence of this. I therefore urge the Government to make a full investigation of the situation. What is the nature of the evidence? For obvious reasons it is extremely hard to come by any hard and fast statistical evidence. Customers of insurance companies do not know what happens to other customers, and, therefore, they do not know if they are being discriminated against. Insurance companies themselves are quite extraordinarily coy about what their policies and practices are. On the whole, they do not publish the facts. They insist that they do not carry out discriminatory policies, but they refuse to reveal the basis on which they assess risks and calculate premiums. But this does not diminish the need for inquiry. It
strengthens it.
A further point is that in the field of insurance the position of the law at the moment seems rather peculiar. The leading case on this subject is that of Horne v. Poland, decided in the High Court, in 1922. The judgment in that case appears to mean that the courts enjoin discrimination, or what would now be considered to be discrimination, on the part of insurance companies. The judge

in that case ruled as follows, "It is impossible to say that matters such as nationality, caste and early domicile cannot be of importance in judging as to the risk that underwriters run in entering into such a contract—that is to say, that there are racial or national differences as regards training, education and the other matters than I have mentioned."
This view, that racial differences, or differences of national origin, are relevant in a field like this has, of course, no scientific validity whatever. It would not be accepted for a moment by any anthropologist, psychologist or physiologist. It may have been plausible in 1922, but certainly not today. However, as far as I can make out, that is still the leading case. Therefore, there is good reason to suppose that insurance companies may well be carrying out their policies in conformity with it.
I turn to the evidence which has come my way about the experience of customers of insurance companies concerning the premiums charged, and also the employment policies followed by insurance companies. Here are some examples of complaints which have been made to the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination by customers of insurance companies who allege that they have been discriminated against.
A Jamaican teacher of music was given a comprehensive insurance for her car on arrival in this country, provided that she was the sole driver. After three years' no-claim bonus, she applied for a fully comprehensive policy with no stipulation about the driver. In the branch office she was told that this was acceptable, but when the head office heard that she was Jamaican they refused the policy.
An Indian white-collared worker was told in the office of one of the large motoring organisations that any insurance cover it could find for him would have to be 50 per cent. in excess of normal premiums. He asked why that was so and was told that it was because of driving on the right-hand side of the road in India. He pointed that he was a Kenyan Indian and that he drove on the left-hand side of the road at home. The officer of the organisation replied that that was immaterial and that all immigrants had to have increased premiums. He said, "If you don't like it, there is the door."
An Indian office worker had been unable to find an insurance company which did not increase the premium on his car, which did not increase the initial amount which a customer would have to pay if there was an accident, and which would give him comprehensive cover. Only one would give a reason for that behaviour; the official said that it was a matter of "national temperament", not colour, which made immigrants a poor risk. He admitted that all immigrants, regardless of race, were discriminated against equally. Those are just a few random examples. But as I said, they cannot, in the nature of the case, be anything more than that.
Here is a different example, applying to employment policy: about a year ago, the Campaign Against Racial Discrimination sent letters to 26 insurance companies from two mythical school leavers, an Englishman and a West Indian who had spent his whole life in Britain. Each wanted a clerical job. The letters were virtually identical except that the West Indian was slightly better educated. More than half the insurance companies offered the supposed Englishman an interview. Only one offered the West Indian an interview.
In addition to these examples, I carried out a very amateur experiment in social research myself yesterday. I rang up four motor insurance companies to find out what premiums would be charged for an Englishman of 30 with three years' driving experience in a professional job, as against an Indian of 30 with six years' driving experience in the same kind of job. All four companies were able to quote premiums over the 'phone for the Englishman—identical premiums.
In the case of the Indian, one company said that it could only give insurance for the Indian himself and named drivers. One company said bluntly that no premiums could be quoted over the 'phone, even though it had done so for the Englishman. Only one of the four offered the Indian the same premium on the same terms which they had quoted for the Englishman.
The insurance companies themselves deny passionately and vehemently that they practise any kind of discrimination on racial grounds. They claim that their

policy is based on actuarial risk only. However, they refuse to state the statistical basis on which they calculate the actuarial risk. Recently, the National Council for Civil Liberties carried out an investigation of insurance companies, writing to virtually every insurance company in the country asking what their policies were in this field. Some of the replies are indicative of attitudes which suggest that discrimination is being carried out.
The Pearl Assurance Company says:
this company, in writing all classes of business, follows the wellknown underwriting principle of considering every case on its merits.
But it gives no evidence of how it decides what the merits are.
The Provincial Insurance Company says:
It is true that on average 'coloured' persons are asked to pay more for insurance than the average British national; not because we object to colour…but because at the present stage of integration of the coloured people into the United Kingdom…they are on average…substantially inferior risks compared to the average British national…people who have not been in this country for several years immediately before proposing for motor insurance are suspect' motor risks, because they have not had sufficient time to become accustomed to the conditons which obtain here…On this score 'coloured' people are at a disadvantage because by and large they come from the less sophisticated countries.
But this cannot, of course, be true of coloured people who have been in this country for a long time, and still less to coloured people born in this country.
The Provincial Insurance Company says:
temperament is also a factor. 'Coloured' people tend to be light-hearted, extrovert and gregarious. Whilst these are excellent characteristics from many points of view, they are not conducive to being good motor risks.
I should like to get the advice of a statistically-trained social anthropologist on that kind of arguing.
The Legal and General says:
the suggestion that discriminatory rates are applied for insurance risks where 'coloured' people are concerned is not uncommon but has no foundation in fact. It usually arises because newly arrived immigrants discover native born Englishmen who pay lower motor premiums than themselves and draw the erroneous conclusion that this is because they are of different race or colour.
The self-evident fact, of course, is that any driver who has little or no experience of


driving conditions in this country must expect to pay appropriate rates until he has a proven record of safe driving on British roads.
The National Council for Civil Liberties asked how long an immigrant would have to stay in this country before he could be considered to have a proven record of safe driving on British roads. The company wrote in reply that
Duration of residence' has of itself no significance whatsoever.
That sounds a rather odd statement, in view of what it had said only shortly before.
It is also worth pointing out that the problem is not just one of racial discrimination. There are good grounds for believing that the methods which insurance companies employ to calculate risks and decide on sizes of premiums are suspect anyway.
Some time 'ago the insurance companies of this country employed an American management consultant firm called McKinsey to inquire into their structure, methods, policy and so on. The McKinsey Report was produced in 1965. The insurance companies have steadily refused to publish it. All that one can go on is what appeared in the Press about it. It seems clear that the McKinsey Report criticised very caustically the arbitrary, unscientific and basically irrelevant methods which the British insurance companies employed to calculate risks.
What are the implications of all this? I am not trying to argue that everyone should pay the same premium—obviously not. The size of the premium must be calculated on the basis of risk. But I do say that the calculation of risk should be based on scientifically valid and statistically verified grounds. It is reasonable to say that a man who gets into an accident every six months should pay more. It is not reasonable to say that a man should pay more because he is coloured and because the insurance companies have a vague hunch that coloured people present higher risks.
If the insurance companies do possess statistical data of a reliable kind which would show that coloured people present higher risks, let them produce it. But they have not produced it and there is no suggestion of any kind of statistical evidence in all the letters sent to the
National Council. To my mind, this suggests that the insurance companies have not got such evidence, and this is not surprising, because I do not believe that any really reliable statistical data of this kind could exist anyway.
It is not enough simply to show that more coloured drivers get into accidents or have claims than white drivers. It would be necessary to show that this was true social class by social class, age by age, occupation by occupation. That is an elementary principle of statistical inference. One has to compare like with like. It is not enough simply to compare the whole group of coloured people in this country with the whole white population. There may be other relevant differences between the two populations.
There is no evidence that the insurance companies have carried out any investigations remotely of this kind. This is why I suggest to my right hon. Friend —I urge him—that he should be prepared to carry out a thorough investigation into the whole matter. It is clear that the insurance companies, particularly in motor insurance, are agents of the State and this means that there is an obligation both on them and the Government to carry out public policy. I ask my hon. Friend at least to throw some light into this rather dark and dubious corner.

10.3 a.m.

The Minister of State, Board of Trade (Mr. George Darling): My hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Mr. Marquand) has made some allegations about the practice of insurance companies and has used, for example, a phrase like "this dubious corner" of, I suppose, a trading practice. We will certainly examine any case which he brings forward about prima facie evidence of racial discrimination and colour prejudice in the insurance business.
I must make it clear that the Government stand firmly against racial discrimination and colour prepudice and will take whatever steps are needed when evidence of it comes to light to see that it is stamped out. But I must also make it clear where the responsibilities of the Board of Trade lie in this matter.
The Board of Trade is responsible for the supervision of the insurance business with a view to protecting the interests


of the public, generally and in the main for the avoidance of insolvencies. The Board's powers in this connection are being very much strengthened in the Companies Bill now before Parliament. But the Board has no power to require insurers to accept particular risks or to control the terms of policies, and we are not proposing to take such powers.
Considering the size of the whole range of insurance, it would be quite impossible for the Board of Trade, day by day, to instruct insurance companies about the risks which they ought to underwrite, the risks which they should insure and the terms on which those risks should be covered. What we can do, by public pressure, by whatever means are available to us, legislative and otherwise, is to see that the insurance business is carried out in such a way that the granting of differential terms is not in any way based on racial discrimination or colour prejudice.
Surely, the situation is that we are asking for equality of treatment for the same kinds of insurance risk, as my hon. Friend said. My hon. Friend will agree that in certain circumstances discrimination among policy holders is a necessary and even a desirable feature of insurance practice. If there were not such discrimination, the bad risks would be subsidised by the good risks. It is common, of course, for more favourable treatment to be given to good risks. This is clearly seen in the "no claims" discount for motor car drivers.
I do not want, at this time of the day, to get involved in discussing how the insurance companies should arrange their business so that any question of racial discrimination or prejudice is completely banished from their operations, but where, in the past, in giving instructions about the risks which they are prepared to underwrite, insurance companies have given an indication that there is some difference, some prejudice against coloured immigrants, that is to be deprecated.
As far back as 1961 both the British Insurance Association and the Accident Offices Association urged their members to remove from their underwriting guides anything which could be interpreted as calling for a racial discrimination. We shall certainly examine any cases which

come along, but, so far as I know, the insurance companies which belong to those two main associations are carrying out that policy which was laid down in 1961.
It is perfectly true that some companies and underwriters, for instance, with motor insurance, make all immigrants pay increased premiums until they have been established over a period of time as being good risks, but this obligation to pay premiums higher than those paid by people born in this country is not based on colour. It applies to all immigrants —Australian, Canadian, foreigners from Europe. Anybody coming into this country is called upon, without racial discrimination, apart from the fact of being an immigrant, to pay increased premiums.
My hon. Friend mentioned employment. Insurance companies in this country would be extremely foolish to put a bar of colour prejudice into employment, or into their policy operations, because most of their business is conducted overseas, a great part of it in the Caribbean, West Africa and other parts of Africa, India and Pakistan. In their overseas branches, of course, they employ the residents of the countries in which they operate.
It would be stupid and hypocritical of them to deny employment in this country to former residents of those overseas countries who are immigrants here. I am assured by the insurance companies that where there are apparent cases of discrimination they arise because the candidates for jobs do not come up to the educational or other standards which the offices apply and are not racial discrimination.
Whether this is true can only be measured by looking at the employment rolls of the companies. It is a fact that about 600 coloured staff are employed in the offices of the member companies of the British Insurance Association. I do not know how that compares with the proportion that one could expect if there was no discrimination at all.
In addition, there are training schemes for coloured people returning to take up posts in insurance offices in their country of origin. Any evidence that we have suggests that the trade associations of the insurance companies are doing all that they can to make sure that there is


no racial prejudice and no colour discrimination in insurance operations or in employment. If we get any evidence to suggest that the desires of the Association are not being carried out by the member companies, then we will examine these cases. We are well aware that we can take these cases up with the com-

panies concerned and with the Association. Any evidence that my hon. Friend can bring forward will be examined in this way.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned at twelve minutes past Ten o'clock, a.m.